39-Gerry-Kessels-Evidence.Pdf

BEFORE THE BOARD OF INQUIRY

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF Gerardus Henricus Anthonius KESSELS

Sainsbury Logan & Williams Ref: Lara J Blomfield Solicitors Fax: 06-835 6746 Cnr Tennyson Street and Cathedral Lane Phone: 06-835 3069 PO Box 41 Napier

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 4 3. SCOPE & METHODOLOGY ...... 7 4. SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC FLORA AND FAUNA INVESTIGATIONS ...... 10 5. THREATENED & AT RISK SPECIES ...... 19 6. ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION ...... 20 7. ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ...... 24 8. AVOIDANCE, REMEDIATION, MITIGATION AND MONITORING ...... 37 9. COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS ...... 49

EXHIBITS GK1 AMENDED PLANT SPECIES LIST 58 GK2 JULY-AUGUST 2013 BIOACOUSTIC BLUE DUCK/KIWI SURVEY 61 GK3 MODIFIED AT RISK AND THREATENED SPECIES TABLES 62 GK4 LENZ CATEGORIES & ECOLOGICAL DISTRICT MAP 63 GK5 THE MITIGATION HIERARCHY 65 GK6 MITIGATION AND OFFSET SUMMARY TABLE 66 GK7 COVENANT AND SMEDLEY EXCHANGE BLOCK MAPS AND TABLE 69

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 My name is Gerardus (Gerry) Henricus Anthonius Kessels. I am managing director of Kessels & Associates Limited, a specialist ecology assessment consultancy.

1.2 I hold a Bachelor of Science degree majoring in zoology, completed in 1988 and a Master of Resource and Environmental Planning (first class honours, specialising in wetland ecology) completed in 1999, both from Massey University.

1.3 I have 23 years of experience in the fields of ecology and resource management planning, initially with the Department of Conservation as a Conservation officer at Mount Bruce Wildlife Reserve and then as a Conservation Officer – Protected Species with the Waikato Conservancy. From the end of 1994 until the end of 1999 I worked for the Hamilton and Napier offices of Works Consultancy Services/Opus International Consultants as an ecologist. Since 1999 I have been the managing director of Kessels & Associates Ltd (now trading as Kessels Ecology). During part of this time I also worked for the QEII National Trust as their Waikato/Coromandel regional representative. Kessels & Associates currently employs four fulltime ecologists and a number of part-time ecologists with whom I work, as well as regularly utilising expertise from other organisations when required.

1.4 I am a member of the Freshwater Sciences Society of New Zealand, the New Zealand Ecological Society, the Ornithological Society of New Zealand, the Waikato Botanical Society and an affiliate member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.

1.5 I have no specific area of specialist fauna or flora expertise, rather being a generalist ecologist with experience in assessing the conservation significance of natural habitats and assessing the effects associated with large developments within sensitive ecosystems. This experience stems from a broad background in threatened species management, ecosystem monitoring/evaluation and conservation management, including development and implementation of policy and legal protection mechanisms.

1.6 I have been assessing flora and fauna habitats since 1990, including: threatened species captive breeding management/research; assistance with offshore island pest eradication programmes; assistance with capture, translocation and tagging

Page 1

of a number of threatened bird species, such as kakapo and kokako; surveys for threatened fish/lizards/bats; ecological restoration and management plans; significant natural area assessments and policy development; as well as ecological impact assessments and Resource Management Act (RMA) section 42A review reports for a wide variety of development proposals. I have undertaken this work for a number of organisations, including the Department of Conservation (DOC), territorial authorities, numerous private landowners, non- profit conservation organisations and private companies.

1.7 Four recent projects of most relevance which I have been involved in are:

(a) Lead ecologist representing West Coast Regional Council and Buller District Council in the Forest & Bird Society Environment Court appeal against Buller Coal to mine on the Dennsiton Plateau – Escarpment Mine Project (EMP);

(b) Review ecologist of the Castle Hill wind farm proposal, on behalf of the regional and district councils considering resource consent applications;

(c) The Hauāuru mā Raki wind farm (HMR) project to the Board of Inquiry, where I was the lead ecologist for Contact Energy; and

(d) Lead ecologists and peer review ecologist for a number of sections of the Waikato Expressway extension of State Highway One, including the Ngaruawahia section (where I represented the New Zealand Transport Authority) and the Cambridge section of the expressway (where I am representing Waikato and Waipa District Councils and the Waikato Regional Council).

1.8 These are relevant projects to the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) as they all posed potentially significant adverse ecological effects on sensitive terrestrial ecosystems and threatened/at risk species, and because a variety of offset and compensatory measures were developed in consent conditions as a means to address and monitor the avoidance, remediation and mitigation of ecological effects, including residual ecological effects.

Page 2

Purpose and scope of evidence

1.9 I have been asked by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd (HBRIC Ltd) to provide evidence on the ecological effects of the RWSS component of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal (TCP) in the form of an overview of previous relevant technical studies, along with the proposed avoidance, remediation, mitigation and monitoring conditions and rationale, and respond to the relevant aspects of the submissions received.

1.10 In relation to the above matters, supported by a team of other ecologists, I was responsible for producing the “Terrestrial Ecology Study Assessment of Ecological Effects – Final May 2013”1 referred to as the TER in my evidence and the “Department of Conservation Managed Land – Description of Ecological Effects – Final June 2013” report (prepared in support of a parallel Conservation Act concession process for the RWSS). I also provided input and review as co- author of the technical report entitled “Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme – Proposed Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach” (HBRIC 2013f, IMOA)2.

1.11 My evidence specifically relates to the terrestrial ecological effects associated with the construction and operation of the RWSS. In my evidence I provide:

(a) Scope & Methodology (section 3);

(b) Summary of Specific Flora and Fauna Investigations (section 4);

(d) Ecological Significance Determination (section 6);

(e) Assessment of Ecological Effects (section 7);

(f) Avoidance, remediation, mitigation and monitoring (section 8); and

(g) Comments on submissions (section 9).

1 RWSS Folder 6, Tab 1. 2 RWSS Folder 3, Tab 6.

Page 3

Expert Code of Conduct

1.12 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in section 5 of the Environment Court’s Practice Note (2011). I agree to comply with that Code of Conduct. Except where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of another person, my evidence in this statement is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions which I express.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 Kessels & Associates Limited (KAL) were engaged by HBRIC Ltd to conduct an ecological impact assessment of the Scheme and make recommendations regarding measures to avoid, mitigate or offset potential adverse effects on indigenous terrestrial fauna and flora species and their habitats. The assessment of ecological effects we ultimately reported on as part of the RWSS AEE documentation was lodged in May 2013.

2.2 The effects of the RWSS can be summarised as:

(a) A permanent loss of a variety of indigenous vegetation communities within the reservoir, dam and spillway footprint area;

(b) A permanent loss of a variety of feeding, roosting and breeding habitats (both exotic and indigenous) for birds, lizards, bats and invertebrates;

(c) Alteration of habitats for indigenous flora and fauna within and adjacent to braided river ecosystems downstream of the dam and intake structure associated with changes in sediment deposition rates, river flow patterns and changes in land use;

(d) A change of habitat types on the margins of the reservoir due to changes in hydrology and effects of seasonal and irrigation drawdown causing inundation and ebbing of the ‘lake’ edge; and

(e) Disturbance of remaining indigenous flora and fauna adjacent to the reservoir due to potential increases in the recreational use of the reservoir and its margins.

2.3 The total area affected by the RWSS (i.e. reservoir area, dam footprint and spoil disposal areas) is 450.18 ha. Indigenous vegetation covers an area of 167.57

Page 4

ha and includes four types of forest, three types of indigenous scrub, four types of shrubland and treeland, and three wetland classes. Exotic vegetation covers an area of 204.90 ha with the majority being pasture or rank grasses. The braided riverbed was mapped out separately and covers an area of 73.97 ha.

2.4 A total of 185.18 ha of ecologically significant indigenous vegetation and habitats would be flooded by the proposed reservoir or removed by the dam and associated infrastructure. This comprises of: 80.71 ha of mature and secondary indigenous forest; 22.70 ha of secondary indigenous scrub; 2.69 ha of indigenous treeland; 73.97 ha of gravel river bed; and 5.11 ha of wetland or seep zones.

2.5 Twelve nationally classified terrestrial Threatened and At Risk flora and fauna species have been found within the proposed reservoir footprint. Ten of these species were discovered as a consequence of the field surveys conducted as part the TER assessment. Two fish species are also recorded as being present in the Department of Conservation’s BioWeb database. Three of the species present within the Scheme area fall within the nationally Threatened species category, and the other seven terrestrial species are listed in the ‘At Risk’ category.

2.6 Some 6.11% loss of extant indigenous habitats within National Priority 1 land for Biodiversity Protection in the Tukituki Catchment would occur as a consequence of the construction and operation of the RWSS. This extent of loss is significant and requires mitigation in order to offset the loss. Nonetheless, if the loss of indigenous vegetation and habitats is analysed within the Hawke’s Bay Region, then the combined comparative loss of indigenous vegetation and habitats within National Priority 1 land for Biodiversity Protection is 0.87%. This indicates that while the effects on indigenous vegetation and habitats at a catchment level are significant, they are not so great or the habitats so unique from a regional or national perspective that the loss would cause irreversible losses at a regional or national scale. Hence mitigation and offsetting is an appropriate approach to ensuring that these effects of habitat loss can minimised to an acceptable level.

2.7 The key set of conditions (updated conditions 21 - 27 of Schedule One) are detailed under the header Reservoir Filling and Edge Rehabilitation Plan (RFERP), which outlines the measures required to avoid, remedy mitigate and

Page 5

monitor adverse ecological effects during construction and operation of the RWSS.

2.8 The specific residual terrestrial ecology effects requiring offsetting are summarised as follows:

(a) Loss of significant terrestrial indigenous vegetation. This is the area of ecologically significant indigenous vegetation covered by the dam and reservoir footprint, which is calculated to be 106.10 ha.

(b) Edge effects. The assumed detectable edge effects area, which would be adversely affected is 10 ha.

(c) Braided river habitat. The area of braided river habitat (gravel river bed) lost under the reservoir and dam footprint is calculated to be 73.97 ha.

(d) Wetland habitat. The area of ecologically significant wetland and seep zone habitat, which would be lost is estimated to be 5.11 ha.

(e) Loss of habitat for Threatened and At Risk Species. Loss of significant habitat for nine At Risk and Threatened terrestrial fauna and flora species would result as a consequence of the dam and reservoir, equating to some 185.18 ha.

2.9 The biodiversity offset/compensation projects proposed are:

(a) Project A: Ruataniwha Reservoir Restoration Buffer and Catchment Enhancement Zone;

(b) Project B: Ruataniwha Riparian Enhancement Zone (River Halo Project); and

2.10 These packages have been designed with a holistic ecological landscape view in mind, so that they are all ecologically linked and will achieve a number of benefits for a range of vegetation and habitat types as well a range of indigenous fauna and flora in this landscape. When these projects are combined, and excluding the other projects which will also create biodiversity gains, potentially over 2,700 ha of habitats, containing a wide range of indigenous species, including existing habitat for many At Risk and Threatened

Page 6

flora and fauna, would receive targeted habitat protection and enhancement management for at least thirty years.

3. SCOPE & METHODOLOGY

3.1 KAL were engaged by HBRIC Ltd to conduct an ecological impact assessment of the Scheme and make recommendations regarding measures to avoid, mitigate or offset potential adverse effects on indigenous terrestrial fauna and flora species and their habitats in August 2011. The assessment of ecological effects we ultimately reported on as part of the RWSS AEE documentation was based on the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Project Description (Tonkin & Taylor, May 2013a).

3.2 The brief provided for the terrestrial ecology investigations was as follows:

(a) Field Investigations to ground truth and refine vegetation maps prepared in the pre-feasibility study3 and to assess whether any at risk or threatened plants are in the affected areas;

(b) Avifauna surveys to determine relative abundance of common indigenous and native birds and to assess whether any at risk and/or threatened birds utilise the affected areas;

(d) Field investigations to confirm the importance of affected habitat for lizards, in particular to identify the presence or absence of at risk and threatened species;

(e) Field investigations to confirm the importance of affected habitat for invertebrates, in particular to identify the presence or absence of at risk or threatened species;

(f) An examination of the impact of habitat loss on functional landscape ecology values;

(g) Potential effects of river morphology changes on terrestrial linked ecosystem values; and

3 Forbes, A. 2011. Preliminary Terrestrial Ecology Assessment of Makaroro & Makaretu Water Augmentation. Prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. MWH, Hamilton.

Page 7

(h) Recommendations for appropriate measures to avoid, remedy, mitigate, or offset for any potential adverse effects identified.

3.3 Section 2.1 of the TER provides an over view of the methodology and section 2.2 lists the key reference documents used. Detailed methodologies are presented in the TER for botanical surveys (section 5.2); avifauna (section 6.2); bats (section 7.3), lizards (section 8.3); terrestrial invertebrates (section 9.4); threatened and at risk species (section 4.1); and ecological significance (section 11.1). In the interest of brevity, I do not attempt to repeat any of that material in this statement, but adopt it for the purpose of my evidence.

3.4 The terrestrial ecology team commenced investigations in August 2011. Initially an inception report was prepared in September 2011. This report was discussed with key stakeholder representatives (Forest & Bird and the Department of Conservation) and outlined the details of the methodology for field work. Field studies commenced in September 2011 and have been carried out at various times through 2011, 2012 and 2013, until August 2013.

3.5 Desktop review of the initial vegetation mapping and descriptions commenced in September 2011. Initial field work was undertaken between September and December 2011. Detailed vegetation mapping and descriptions were undertaken from September 2011 until release of the TER in May 2013, including two further informal field checks in February and November 2012 to recheck mapping as presented in the TER. In July 2013 additional botanical surveys were undertaken by two botanists. This survey lead to a slight amendment of the plant species list and is presented as Exhibit GK1.

3.6 As detailed in the TER, fauna surveys were conducted from October 2011 until February 2013 within the proposed reservoir footprint as well as in the Waipawa River. In addition wider landscape surveys were undertaken for bats in January and February 2013 as detailed in section 7.3 of the TER. I undertook an additional bird bioacoustic survey within Dutch Creek, during July - August 2013, in an attempt to maximise detection opportunities for blue duck and kiwi calls. A summary of the methods and results of this additional survey are presented in Exhibit GK2.

3.7 As well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews, the TER and its associate studies have had input from stakeholders during the consultation process as well as an internally commissioned peer review by Dr. Vaughan

Page 8

Keesing, the details of which are presented in Appendix XIV and Appendix XV of the TER. My responses to these reviews are also included in these appendices.

3.8 A number of ecologists were employed in the investigations and assessments to support me. The key members of the investigation and review team were:

(a) Dr John Craig – avifauna methodology, review and offset mitigation

(b) Dr Stuart Parsons – bat surveys and analysis

(d) Mr Patrick Stewart – fauna surveys and data analysis

(e) Mr David Riddell – lizards and avifauna surveys

(f) Mr Ryan Clarke – GIS mapping and LENZ analysis

(g) Mrs Britta Deichmann - botany and GIS mapping/analysis

(h) Ms Ursula Brandes - botany

(i) Mr Kerry Jones – botany and GIS mapping

(j) Mr Bruce Mackay – botany

(k) Mr Hamish Dean - botany

(l) Mr Sam Gibson – fauna surveys

(m) Dr Vaughan Keesing – internal review

3.9 I note that in the Department of Conservation’s 2007 revisions the threatened species classifications were changed to At Risk and Threatened, so in effect there are now two over-riding categories – ‘Threatened’ and ‘At Risk’. Threatened species are considered the most endangered and vulnerable to threats. At Risk species, while still nationally important, can be viewed as less endangered and vulnerable to habitat change. This classification system was applied in the TER (refer section 4.1, methodology).

Page 9

4. SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC FLORA AND FAUNA INVESTIGATIONS

Vegetation

4.1 For a detailed presentation of the findings of the botanical investigations refer to section 5.3, Appendix II (plant species list), Appendix III (Recce Plot data), Appendix IV (Photos of vegetation types), and Appendix V (detailed vegetation community type maps). Scientific names for the species discussed below are given in the TER.

4.2 Table 1: Areas of affected vegetation or habitat types and percentage cover within the reservoir footprint:

Vegetation/Habitat Types Area (ha) Percent of total Farm track or road 2.91 0.65% Stream channel 0.83 0.18% Gravel river bed 73.97 16.43% Indigenous Forest 80.71 17.93% beech forest 52.03 11.56% podocarp-broadleaf forest 10.61 2.36% broadleaf forest 17.40 3.87% small-leaved forest 0.67 0.15% Indigenous Scrub 22.70 5.04% (kowhai)/broadleaf scrub 1.19 0.26% (podocarp)/broadleaf-small-leaved scrub 10.52 2.34% small-leaved-broadleaf scrub 10.99 2.44% Indigenous Shrubland/Treeland 59.05 13.12% (podocarp)/broadleaf-small-leaved 18.80 4.18% treeland/shrublandblack beech treeland 9.32 2.07% broadleaf-small-leaved tussock-shrubland 29.92 6.65% small-leaved treeland and/or shrubland 1.01 0.22% Wetland Vegetation 5.11 1.14% podocarp-broadleaf-small-leaved shrubland/seep 0.46 0.10% zoneseep zone 4.36 0.97% Wetland 0.29 0.06% Exotic Vegetation 204.90 45.52% exotic forest and/or treeland 16.00 3.55% pasture or rank grass 174.24 38.70% willow/lupine forest and/or scrub 14.66 3.26% Grand Total 450.18 100.00%

4.3 The total area affected by the RWSS (i.e. reservoir area, dam footprint and spoil disposal areas) is 450.18 ha. The vegetation mapping process resulted in the classification and description of 17 broad, distinctive vegetation communities, or classes (exclusive of open bodies of water, the gravel riverbed and roads and farm tracks). These 17 broad types are derived from, and are an amalgamation

Page 10

of 50 specific habitat types as shown on the maps presented in Appendix V of the TER (Volume II).

4.4 The indigenous vegetation covers an area of 167.57 ha and includes four types of forest, three types of indigenous scrub, four types of shrubland and treeland, and three wetland classes (whereby seep zones are commonly dominated by exotic pasture species). Exotic vegetation covers an area of 204.90 ha with the majority being pasture or rank grasses (i.e. 174.24 ha or 38.7% of the total area). The braided riverbed was mapped out separately and covers an area of 73.97 ha or 16.43% of the total area surveyed. Table 1 below (an excerpt from the Table 23 of the TER), provides a detailed breakdown of the vegetation and habitat types found.

4.5 The 17 broad vegetation/habitat classes are described as follows (in addition to these vegetation types, the lower stream channel of Dutch Creek, the gravel riverbed of Makaroro River, as well as farm tracks and Wakarara Road were mapped out separately):

(a) Beech forest (52.03 ha): This is the most widespread indigenous forest type within the proposed reservoir area. Apart from one area at the very downstream end of the dam and reservoir footprint, which is dominated by mountain beech, these areas are usually dominated by mature black beech. However, there are areas, such as at the confluence of Dutch Creek with Makaroro River, where large matai (>25 m in height) and the occasional kahikatea emerge above the black beech canopy and where red beech forms a small canopy component as well. The Nationally At Risk red mistletoe was found in this forest type along Dutch Creek (see Photo 6 and description in Section 5.3.2 of the TER).

(b) Podocarp-broadleaf forest (10.61 ha): This vegetation type is dominated by a mixture of young podocarp species such as kahikatea, rimu and matai that are starting to emerge over a broadleaf subcanopy, but are commonly still at a similar height. The podocarps in this forest type are usually a lot younger than the ones found amongst the old-growth beech forest.

(c) Broadleaf forest (17.40 ha): This forest type consists of a pure broadleaf canopy with podocarps (i.e. matai, totara and kahikatea) only present as saplings and seedlings. The most widespread species in this forest type

Page 11

are lacebark, kaikomako, lancewood, putaputaweta, black matipo, mahoe and mapou.

(d) Small-leaved forest/scrub (0.67 ha): Only a very small area of this vegetation type is present within the subject site. The canopy is dominated by manuka, but includes patches of bitter willow and very few grey willows.

(e) (Podocarp)/broadleaf-small-leaved scrub (10.52 ha): These areas are regenerating secondary scrub with canopy heights of usually less than 6 m with only the occasional podocarp (usually kahikatea or totara) emerging in some areas. Species common in this vegetation type include broadleaf species such as mahoe, hangehange, koromiko and lancewood, as well as small-leaved species such as manuka, kanuka, poataniwha, New Zealand myrtle and korokio. The groundcover is usually dominated by pasture herbs and common grasses.

(f) (Kowhai)/broadleaf scrub (1.19 ha): This vegetation type is found on the steep slopes of the Makaroro River banks. These areas are usually dominated by young, low-growing broadleaved species such as mahoe, lancewood, koromiko and karamu, with a conspicuous percentage of emerging kowhai trees, and some emergent cabbage trees.

(g) Small-leaved-broadleaf scrub (10.99 ha): Vegetation included in this type typically contains a mixture of manuka with a smaller percentage of other small-leaved shrubs (e.g. korokio, poataniwha) and occasional broadleaf species, such as young mahoe, lancewood, koromiko and coprosma species as well as the occasional young podocarp (i.e. kahikatea or totara).

(h) Broadleaf-small-leaved-tussock shrubland (29.92 ha): This vegetation type covers a reasonably large area within the study site. It occurs on steep cliffs and river banks and contains a various mixture of broadleaved and small-leaved shrub species (e.g. koromiko, hangehange, mahoe, putaputaweta, kaikomako, broadleaf, cabbage tree), as well as monocotyledonous species such as flax, machaerina, astelias, toetoe, tutu and whip.

(i) Black beech treeland (9.32 ha): This vegetation type comprises remnant trees of the original black beech forest canopy mainly situated within

Page 12

grazed pasture with no understorey species remaining. Species present are usually mature black beeches interspersed with only the occasional matai, kahikatea or rimu. Some areas along the downstream tributaries on the true left side of Makaroro River are only occasionally grazed and still contain a thin indigenous shrub layer underneath a narrow line of black beech trees.

(j) (Podocarp)/broadleaf-small-leaved treeland/shrubland (18.80 ha): This is a variant of (Podocarp)/broadleaf-small-leaved scrub above with less than 80% tree/shrub cover over significant amounts of pasture.

(k) Small-leaved treeland and/or shrubland (1.01 ha): A variant of ‘Small- leaved forest’ and ‘Small-leaved-broadleaf scrub’ above with less than 80% tree/shrub cover over significant amounts of pasture.

(l) Wetland (0.29 ha): This vegetation classification was used for an oxbow wetland in the lower reach of Dutch Creek.

(m) Podocarp-broadleaf-small-leaved shrubland/seep zone (0.46 ha): Three areas were mapped as this vegetation type. They are grazed and consist of a mixed indigenous shrubland containing some large kahikatea, young podocarps (e.g. kahikatea and rimu), as well as various broadleaf and small-leaved species.

(n) Seep zone (4.36 ha): Areas mapped as seep zones indicate the presence of an elevated water table in association with indigenous and exotic rushes, sedges and mosses, along with only occasional native shrubs in exotic pasture.

(o) Exotic forest and/or treeland (16.00 ha): This descriptor was used for shelterbelts and plantations of pines, eucalypts and larches, as well as scattered mature pine trees in a matrix of pasture.

(p) Willow/lupine forest and/or scrub (14.66 ha): Areas within the current floodplain that are dominated by bitter willow, with grey willow and occasionally crack willow. This vegetation type covers islands within the riverbed and larger areas on the banks. It also includes areas dominated by lupine or buddleia (the latter predominantly occurring towards the upstream end of the site), and sometimes including areas with scattered native shrubs, i.e. willow-manuka shrubland.

Page 13

(q) Pasture or rank grass (174.24 ha): Areas of grazed pasture and areas that are fenced off or not accessible to stock for various reasons where a cover of rank grasses has become established. This vegetation type covers 38.7% of the reservoir area.

(r) Gravel riverbed (73.97 ha): The Makaroro riverbed (braided and single channel) including the open stream channel, dynamic gravel areas and stable gravel banks where vascular plants are starting to become established.

(s) Stream channel (0.83 ha): The open stream channel of the lower Dutch Creek.

(t) Farm track or road (2.91 ha): Distinct farm tracks and a section of Wakarara Road where it crosses Dutch Creek.

4.6 As noted above, a single specimen of one At Risk flora species was found within the reservoir area - Red mistletoe (Peraxilla tetrapetala). This specimen was found growing on a large black beech tree in the Black Beech forest type along the banks of Dutch Creek.

Birds

4.7 Section 6 and Appendix VI of the TER presents the detailed results of bird surveys completed within the proposed reservoir area, as well as for an area 19 km downstream of the site where additional surveys of waders and water birds were undertaken, between October 2011 and August 2013.

4.8 A total of 945 birds from 38 bird species (11 endemic) were identified within the reservoir area during this fieldwork. Fifty five percent of all individual birds formally observed were native, while 45% belonged to introduced species.

4.9 Threatened or at risk species comprise 2.5% (23 birds) of all formal observations, including the Nationally Vulnerable New Zealand bush falcon, which was most likely nesting in the site during spring 2011 and summer 2011/12. This pair was not detected again during further surveys and site visits during 2012 and summer of 2012/13. Banded dotterel were not observed within the reservoir area during the extensive surveys in 2011/12 but one adult with a chick were observed in November 2012. North Island brown kiwi and blue duck (whio) are two species for which there are historical records in the vicinity, including Dutch Creek in the

Page 14

case of blue duck. Neither species was recorded on this survey within the reservoir area, and it is likely that kiwi are now locally extinct, although there are recent anecdotal records of kiwi in Gwavas Forest (David Carlton– DOC, pers comm). Blue duck use of Dutch Creek maybe confined to winter use by the occasional mobile juvenile bird.

4.10 Despite a focussed effort my team has not detected blue duck or kiwi in this locality4. This effort included combined bio-acoustic/listening station kiwi/blue duck survey effort during the spring/summer 2011/2012, a summer 2012/2013 season with walk through surveys focusing on Dutch Creek, and a further bioacoustic/listening station survey in July/August 2013,5 as well as numerous informal walk throughs and 5-minute bird counts.

4.11 Nationally At Risk species detected were pied stilt, New Zealand pipit, black shag and North Island fernbird. Shags were recorded along the river, while pipit were found in rough pasture and scrub/shrubland habitats. Fernbird were heard within wetland, scrub and shrubland habitats in and about the lower reaches of Duck Creek.

4.12 Data from the 21 formal five-minute count stations, as well as walkthrough transects, showed tui (11.8% of all birds) to be the most common of the 15 non- threatened native species observed. Counts for this species were highest when kowhai was flowering abundantly in October. Silvereye (9.5%), grey warbler (8.1%), bellbird (4.8%) and fantail (4.5%) were the other relatively abundant species detected.

4.13 Walkthrough surveys of waders and water birds were completed 19 km downstream from the reservoir site, along a 4.5 km reach of the Waipawa River, from the State Highway 50 bridge to the proposed upstream water intake at the end of Caldwell Road. The Nationally Vulnerable banded dotterel was commonly detected at densities of up to 3.3 pairs/km along this transect. Nationally At Risk pied stilt and pipit were also recorded and, in addition, two large colonies of southern black-backed gulls were observed (refer to Figure 11 in the TER).

4 The upper Makaroro River population of blue duck are part of a northern Ruahine blue duck population of about 50 birds. Blue duck use of Dutch Creek may be confined to winter use by the occasional mobile juvenile birds (John Cheyne, pers comm). An account of blue duck and kiwi distribution and habitat use is further detailed in s6.3.5 of the TER. 5 Refer Exhibit GK 2.

Page 15

Bats

4.14 The TER, in section 7.4, presents the results of the surveys and analysis undertaken associated with bat surveys, with supplementary data results given in Appendix VIII. A detailed impact assessment is present in section 12.4.2 of the TER, while recommended mitigation measures are shown in section 12.4.3 of the TER.

4.15 Long-tailed bats were found throughout the proposed reservoir (inundation) area during ultrasonic surveys completed between November 2011 and February 2012 and in early 2013. Data summaries indicate that bats were foraging about the sheltered areas of the valley floor throughout the survey periods.

4.16 Simultaneous surveys of the reservoir area and the wider landscape surrounding the site during February 2012, as well as January/February 2013, showed that it is likely that long-tailed bats are resident within the reservoir area, and that they may roost in close proximity to some of the monitoring stations. Evidence for this are the high levels of activity within the reservoir area shortly after dusk, and before dawn, particularly near stations 10, 12 and 13 (refer to Figures 12 and Figure 13 in the TER). Activity levels are also higher within the reservoir area compared to the wider landscape surrounding the site, which demonstrates the importance of the habitats within, and in the vicinity of, the reservoir area as habitat for the resident long-tailed bat population. Long-tailed bats resident within the reservoir area are also likely to move between it and the wider landscape surrounding the site during times of flight activity.

4.17 The ‘reservoir population’ is not the only one in the region, with evidence of other discrete populations in the wider landscape detected through the 2013 survey, but survey results show that it is possibly the largest of those detected and thus is a population of importance.

4.18 A potential lesser short-tailed bat (Mystacina tuberculata) pass was also detected in the reservoir area during February 2012. However, no further activity of a similar nature was detected in intensive monitoring early in 2013 meaning this is extremely unlikely the species is present.

Page 16

Lizards

4.19 Section 8.2 and 8.4 of the TER present the findings of the lizard survey and analysis, involving both desk top review to determine likely species present and field survey. New Zealand lizards are generally difficult to survey for being cryptic and often found in tiny, discrete and isolated habitat remnants. Some lizard species have very specific habitat requirements, and can exist in exotic habitats such as rough pasture, as well as rock outcrops or scree fields, because they cannot survive anywhere else due the presence of predators such as mice, rats, hedgehogs and cats. A number of survey techniques and a thorough literature review are required in order to assess the risk of a development on lizards within an impact area.

4.20 The TER details the survey methods used for the RWSS assessment in section 8.3. Further to the explanation of the methods used as detailed in the TER, tracking tunnels were micro-sited in the vicinity of each of six artificial cover object (ACO) clusters (being deployed at clusters B1, B3, L1, L2, L3 and K9). These locations were chosen as they were assessed to be adjacent to or near to habitat features which favour lizards (such as boulder fields, scree, logs, standing dead trees, rough vegetation or fissures in cliff faces). As stated in the TER, no lizard tracks were recorded from the tracking tunnels or ACOs.

4.21 Eleven species of lizard are known from the southern Hawke’s Bay region or neighbouring areas of the southern North Island. Four of these species are considered likely to be present within the footprint of the proposed reservoir. The other species could still potentially occur within the reservoir footprint, but their presence is considered unlikely (either through being rare or with distributions that are either highly localised or not known to include southern Hawke’s Bay).

4.22 Field survey detected only one lizard (Southern North Island forest gecko). This specimen found was discovered in a rock pile among pasture, with a few scattered shrubs. This is very atypical habitat for this species, which is mostly arboreal (though known from fissures in clay banks), and generally recorded from forest or scrub habitats.

Page 17

4.23 Since the publication of Hitchmough et al. (2010)6 the gecko genus Hoplodactylus has been revised, with the creation or resurrection of five new genera (Nielsen et al., 2011)7. Taxonomy and conservation status of lizards now follow Hitchmough et al. (2013)8. As a consequence, Southern North Island forest gecko has been reclassified as a Nationally At Risk species – Declining, which differs from its conservation status described in the TER, where it was (correctly at the time) listed as not Threatened or At Risk.

4.24 Thus, after review of literature, previous surveys in this locality and findings from the RWSS site specific lizards surveys, the presence or possible presence of the following lizards species are as follows:

(a) Common skink (Oligosoma polychroma) - Not threatened (likely present);

(b) Common gecko (Woodworthia maculata) - Not threatened (likely present);

(d) Southern North Island forest gecko (Mokopirirakau ‘southern North Island’) - At Risk Declining (detected during the TER survey).

Terrestrial Invertebrates

4.25 As outlined in Section 9.4 of the TER, targeted rapid biodiversity surveys for terrestrial invertebrates were undertaken within the reservoir area in December 2011 and again in January 2012. In addition, passive detection devices (i.e. weta boxes and tracking tunnels – for lizards as well) have been deployed and checked throughout the site from November 2011 until February 2013.

4.26 Hymenoptera were used as surrogate for determining insect species richness, following the rapid biodiversity assessment method. Results showed a relatively rich diversity of Hymenoptera species, which suggests an equally high level of diversity at lower trophic levels, as well as in other invertebrate groups.

6 Hitchmough, R.A.; Hoare, J.M.; Jamieson, H.; Newman, D.; Tocher, M.D.; Anderson, P.J.; Lettink, M.; Whitaker, A.H. 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009, New Zealand Journal of Zoology 37: 203–224. 7 Nielsen, S. V.; Bauer, A. M.; Jackman, T. R.; Hitchmough, R. A.; Daugherty, C. H. 2011: New Zealand geckos (Diplodactylidae): Cryptic diversity in a post-Gondwanan lineage with trans-Tasman affinities. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 59: 1–22. 8 Hitchmough, R.A.; Anderson, P.J.; Barr, B.; Monks, J.; Lettink, M.; Reardon, J.; Tocher, M.D.; Whitaker, T. 2013: Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2012. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 2. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 16 p.

Page 18

However, less than what could be defined as an average number of terrestrial Gastropod species was found in litter samples and searches.

4.27 The Hawke’s Bay tree weta, Hemideina trewicki, was the only terrestrial invertebrate species found that was listed ‘At Risk’ in Hitchmough et al. (2007)9. No Hymenoptera or Gastropod taxa classified as threatened were found among the invertebrate groups surveyed.

4.28 As a consequence of the peer-review process (see Appendix XV of the TER), a literature study on the potential presence of Threatened or At Risk beetles, spiders, moth or butterflies within the Scheme or wider area was undertaken (see Appendix XVI of the TER).

5. THREATENED & AT RISK SPECIES

5.1 I have considered nationally Threatened and At Risk species found within and adjacent to the RWSS as a benchmark in determining section 6(c) (RMA) significance, which I discuss further in the next section of my evidence. Threatened and At Risk species either found in the TER surveys or potentially present, but not found during the TER surveys, are listed in the tables in Exhibit GK3, which are revised from those presented in the TER for reasons explained below.

5.2 In my opinion, if a habitat is shown to be regularly utilised by a Threatened or At Risk species as an integral component of that species lifecycle, then that habitat may be of section 6(c) significance. However, the significance of the habitat needs to be assessed considering the distributions, relative abundance or viability of the individuals or sub-populations found within the said habitat. This means that some species, such as pipit or fernbird, may have relatively widespread and suitable habitat types available to them in the wider landscape so that a specific habitat type where they have been recorded may not be significant in terms of section 6(c) when assessed in this wider habitat utilisation and habitat availability context. As noted, the issue of ecological significance is discussed further in the following section of my evidence, and applying this contextual perspective.

9 Hitchmough, R.; Bull, L.; Cromarty, P. (comps.). 2007. New Zealand Threat Classification System lists 2005. Threatened species occasional publication 23, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 210p.

Page 19

5.3 Twelve nationally classified terrestrial Threatened and At Risk flora and fauna species have been found within the proposed reservoir footprint (refer to the tables in Exhibit GK3). This is one more than listed in the TER (section 4.2). As explained in paragraph 4.23 above, Southern North Island forest gecko has been reclassified as a nationally At Risk species (declining) since May 2013. Ten of these species were discovered as a consequence of the field surveys conducted as part the TER assessment. Two fish species are also recorded as being present in the Department of Conservation’s BioWeb database.

5.4 Three of the species present within the Scheme area fall within the nationally Threatened species category, and the other seven terrestrial species are listed in the ‘At Risk’ category.

5.5 A further six listed flora species (1 nationally Threatened and 5 At Risk species) and one additional fauna species (nationally Threatened blue duck) are recorded in the BioWeb data as being present within a 10 km radius around the reservoir area. These species may be present within the Scheme area but have not been detected by our surveys to date.

5.6 In addition, based on the detailed literature study for invertebrates (see Appendix XVI of the TER), one Threatened beetle species, three At Risk moth species, as well as one Data Deficient moth species could potentially be present within the Scheme area as they have been recorded in the wider region and potentially suitable habitat exists within the RWSS footprint for them to occupy.

6. ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION

The Statutory Framework

6.1 Section 6 of RMA identifies matters of national importance that must be recognised and provided for by decision-makers when making decisions on resource consent applications. Those that an ecological assessment will typically need to consider are:

(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, lakes and rivers and their margins, and their protection from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development (section 6(a)); and

Page 20

(b) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna (Section 6(c)).

6.2 In addition to Section 6, Section 7 of the RMA lists a range of other matters to which I have had particular regard when assessing the effects of this proposal, including:

(a) the intrinsic values of ecosystems;

(b) the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment; and

6.3 In terms of my assessment of what constitutes section 6(c) significance and the relevant section 7 matters within the RWSS footprint, I have reviewed and, where pertinent, applied the relevant objectives, polices and ecological assessment criteria and scheduling of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan (‘District Plan’), Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the Proposed National Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity.

6.4 I have also tested the RWSS proposal against four assessment criteria which are generally accepted as being suitable to use in the determination of what constitutes ecologically significant habitats and species under section 6(c) of the RMA. These are:

(a) naturally uncommon ecosystem types10;

(b) indigenous vegetation or habitats associated with wetlands;

(c) land environments, defined by Land Environments of New Zealand at Level IV, that have 20 per cent or less remaining in indigenous vegetation cover11; and

(d) habitats of ‘Threatened’ and ‘At Risk’ species.

The Ecological Landscape

6.5 In order to assess the significance of the affected indigenous habitats, analysis of the RWSS was contextualised. In particular, I have assessed the loss of

10 Most recently as described in: Holdaway, R.J.; Wiser, S.K.; Williams. P.A. 2012. Status Assessment of New Zealand's Naturally Uncommon Ecosystems. Conservation Biology, Vol.26, 619-629. 11 Leathwick, J.R.; Wilson, G.; Rutledge, D.; Wardle, P.; Morgan, F.; Johnston, K.; McLeod, M.; Kirkpatrick, R. 2003a: Land environments of New Zealand. David Bateman, Auckland, New Zealand. 184 pp

Page 21

indigenous vegetation and habitats applying four ecological landscape constructs, and using Land Environments of New Zealand analysis (LENZ)12 as a measure of nationally threatened environments:

(a) Ecological Districts (ED) 13 – the Ruahine ED, refer to Exhibit GK4 for the location of these EDs;

(b) Catchment Analysis within the Waipawa Catchment (also shown on Exhibit GK4);

(d) Analysis of the loss within the Hawke’s Bay Region.

6.6 The details of the methodology and analysis with respect to nationally threatened environments are contained within sections 3 and 11 of the TER as discussed in paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8 below.

District and RPS Significance Assessment

6.7 The evaluation of the ecological significance of the areas was undertaken using the District Plan and the RPS criteria for identifying indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna. The analysis is detailed in section 11.3 of the TER and summarised in the following paragraph.

6.8 The natural features within the reservoir/dam footprint that are affected by the Scheme, and which meet the criteria of both the RPS and the District Plan as being ecologically significant are:

(a) The reservoir footprint contains ‘vegetation that has been especially set aside by statute or covenant, or is otherwise legally managed for protection or preservation’, i.e. the areas managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC). One of these DOC areas is a site identified in Appendix D and on the planning maps of the District Plan as being of significant conservation

12 LENZ is a surrogate for the likely past (pre-human) pattern of terrestrial ecosystems and their associated biodiversity. When LENZ is combined with an analysis of changes in the Land Cover Database and these data are compared to a national database of the protective status of land, it has become possible to identify broad patterns of change, vulnerability and protection. 13 An Ecological District (ED) is a scientifically determined region which reflects the underlying biophysical characteristics of a locality. Each ED has a number of unique or distinctive natural habitat features (usually botanical) which distinguishes it from neighbouring EDs.

Page 22

value (i.e. ‘Site 18’ – ‘Bush margin – Makaroro River’, an area of 7.9 ha14 that is part of the Ruahine Forest Park);

(b) Three of the vegetation types present within the area consist of ‘woody indigenous vegetation containing naturally occurring tree species, which attain at least 30 centimetres diameter at breast height at maturity and are either over one hectare in size and with an average canopy height over 6 metres; or over five hectares of any height’. These are ‘Beech forest’, ‘Podocarp-broadleaf forest’ and ‘Broadleaf forest’ (80.04 ha);

(c) The remaining intact and functional terrestrial indigenous vegetation and habitat types – secondary forest and scrub types15 - within the reservoir footprint also meet the definition for ‘Areas of Significant Nature Conservation Value’, because they are within National Priority 1 land for Biodiversity Protection according to the LENZ Threatened Environments classification (23.37 ha);

(d) The braided river bed of the Makaroro River is a nationally ‘originally rare’ ecosystem type, thus the portion of braided river habitat lost under the reservoir is considered to be ecologically significant (73.97 ha);

(e) An area of indigenous treeland16 likely to be providing habitat for long-tailed bats; and

(f) Several areas of freshwater wetland and seep zone habitat are present, which are considered to be ecologically significant (5.11 ha).

6.9 The reservoir area provides habitat for ten terrestrial Threatened and At Risk fauna and flora species and two fish. While areas of pasture, plantation exotic trees, and indigenous shrubland/treeland may provide occasional and low quality habitats for these species, my view is that aside from long-tailed bats, core habitat for terrestrial indigenous species is largely confined to the following habitat types:

14 Note that this area has also been mapped as containing indigenous vegetation in our GIS analysis, and thus is not counted twice in the subsequent tally of the area of significant vegetation/habitats. 15 (small-leaved forest; (podocarp)/broadleaf-small-leaved scrub; (kowhai)/broadleaf scrub; small-leaved- broadleaf scrub) 16 Following the outcome of the peer review process (Attachment One – Response Table, Appendix XV) an indigenous treeland (podocarp-broadleaf-small-leaved) area of 2.69ha has been added to the area of significant indigenous vegetation.

Page 23

(a) Mature Indigenous Forest: beech forest, podocarp-broadleaf forest and broadleaf forest (excluding small-leaved forest);

(b) Secondary Forest and Scrub: small-leaved forest; (podocarp)/broadleaf- small-leaved scrub; (kowhai)/broadleaf scrub; small-leaved-broadleaf scrub;

(d) Gravel River Beds and associated shrublands; and

(e) a small oxbow wetland.

6.10 In summary, a total of 185.18 ha of ecologically significant indigenous vegetation and habitats would be flooded by the proposed reservoir or removed by the dam and associated infrastructure. This comprises of: 80.71 ha of mature and secondary indigenous forest; 22.70 ha of secondary indigenous scrub; 2.69 ha of indigenous treeland; 73.97 ha of gravel river bed; and 5.11 ha of wetland or seep zones. Further analysis of this ecological significant vegetation and habitats and the implications of its loss is provided for in section 12.2 of the TER and section 7 below.

7. ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Summary of Effects

7.1 Section 12 of the TER details the potential adverse ecological effects of the construction and operation of the RWSS. The effects would include:

(a) A permanent loss of a variety of indigenous vegetation communities within the reservoir, dam and spillway footprint area;

(b) A permanent loss of a variety of feeding, roosting and breeding habitats (both exotic and indigenous) for birds, lizards, bats and invertebrates;

Page 24

(d) A change of habitat types on the margins of the reservoir due to changes in hydrology and effects of seasonal and irrigation drawdown causing inundation and ebbing of the ‘lake’ edge; and

(e) Disturbance of remaining indigenous flora and fauna adjacent to the reservoir due to potential increases in the recreational use of the reservoir and its margins.

7.2 Table 22 in Section 12 of the TER provides an overview and summary of the key adverse effects associated with the construction and operation of the RWSS on terrestrial fauna and flora and their habitats. This table also outlines a number of avoidance, remediation, mitigation and monitoring measures that will be required to reduce these effects, which are further detailed in sections 12.2.4, 12.3.4, 12.4.3, 12.5.2, 12.6.2, section 13 of the TER and in the IMOA report, and as discussed further in my evidence in section 8 below.

Effects on Indigenous Habitats

7.3 Forbes et al (2011)17 quantified the extent of indigenous forest and scrub within the Tukituki catchment as being some 41,784 ha18. The total area of comparable indigenous vegetation types lost as a consequence of the RWSS is 162.46 ha. This thus equates to a loss of 0.4% of these vegetation types within the Tukituki Catchment.

7.4 If this loss is contextualised within the Hawke’s Bay Region, I calculate that the extent of loss is less than 1% for all comparable vegetation and habitat types, aside from river habitats, where the loss is estimated to be 1.73% (refer to Table 2 below).

17 Forbes, A.; Stephenson, B.; Cameron, F.; Herbert, S.; Bell, T. 2011. Tukituki Catchment Terrestrial Ecology Characterisation. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. HBRC Plan Number 4294. 18 Table 3.2 in Forbes et al 2011

Page 25

7.5 Table 2: Indigenous Vegetation loss at a regional level (Hawke’s Bay Region total area is 1,418,865 ha) using Land Cover Database 3 (LCDB3).

Amount Left Amount Percentage Loss Habitat Type in the within the For the Hawke’s Region (ha) RWSS (ha) Bay Region Indigenous Forest/Broad- leaved Indigenous 318,453 80.71 0.025% hardwoods Manuka and/or kanuka 126,567 22.7 0.018% scrub Herbaceous freshwater 1,630 5.11 0.31% wetland River 4,332 73.97 1.73%

7.6 However, I consider that this is a rather coarse and simplistic way to express the loss and does not provide a full picture of the implications of the loss, where all landscape ecology variables should be included in the assessment. Consequently, I have also assessed the significance of this loss at a finer landscape ecology level as a method to provide a national and regional context for the effects of this habitat loss, accounting for the important bio-physical variables which make some habitats types more important than others, as detailed in section 11.2 of the TER. For example, I consider as relevant in this context, the fact that un-protected lowland podocarp forest on lowland alluvial plains are more scarce and threatened than beech forest on upland mountain slopes within protected land.

7.7 Using this approach I assessed that some 243 ha of indigenous vegetation or habitat was associated with National Priority 1 land for Biodiversity Protection, namely applying within Acutely Threatened or Chronically Threatened categories, applying the LENZ derived thresholds of less than 10 or 20% remaining cover left (respectively). At the Ruahine Ecological District and Waipawa Catchment levels, the percentage losses (of remaining cover within these categories) associated with the RWSS were quite significant (refer to section 11.2 of the TER).

7.8 With reference to Table GK4.2 in Exhibit GK4, I have re-analysed the extent of loss within the Tukituki River Catchment as a whole. This is a refinement of the assessment calculations shown in Tables 19, 20 and 21 of the TER. At this spatial scale 2.54% of the Acutely Threatened and 3.57% of the Chronically Threatened indigenous vegetation and habitats of extant indigenous habitats

Page 26

within National Priority 1 land for Biodiversity Protection in the Tukituki Catchment would be lost. It is therefore apparent when assessed at the catchment level, that this extent of loss is still significant and requires mitigation in order to offset the loss.

7.9 However, if the loss of indigenous vegetation and habitats is analysed within the Hawke’s Bay Region, then the combined comparative loss of indigenous vegetation and habitats within National Priority 1 land for Biodiversity Protection is 0.87% (refer to Table GK 4.2 in Exhibit GK 4). This is an important spatial level to view the effects of the RWSS as this level of analysis shows that while the effects on indigenous vegetation and habitats at a catchment level are significant, they are not so great, nor the habitats so unique, from a regional or national perspective that avoidance is the only option available. In other words, the loss is not so significant that it would cause irreversible losses at a regional or national scale. Hence mitigation and offsetting is an appropriate approach to ensuring that these effects of habitat loss can minimised to an acceptable level.

Effects on protected land

7.10 22.23 ha of the affected areas as just described, and that would be covered by the reservoir at “Full Supply Level,” are located within the Ruahine Forest Park (also included in this figure is a small area of Stewardship Land (as defined under the Conservation Act 1987) which is contiguous with the Forest Park). This area is mainly located along the margins of Dutch Creek. The Ruahine Forest Park is some 94,000 ha in size, so the flooding equates to a 0.023% loss of this protected land, and in this context is considered to be small and largely minor in effect. The main indigenous forest vegetation type found on the DOC managed land that would be affected by the proposed reservoir is black beech forest, encompassing 10.53 ha. A further 1.94 ha of broadleaf forest would also be lost due to flooding. Approximately 8.19 ha of DOC managed land that would be affected by flooding is covered by indigenous shrub/treeland, of which 5.57 ha is covered by broadleaf-small-leaved-monocot scrub/treeland.

7.11 Exotic forest and grassland covers make up approximately 0.85 ha of this area, while braided river and wetland habitats cover approximately 0.424 ha and 0.293 ha of DOC managed land respectively. Apart from the small area of oxbow wetland, these habitat types appear to be well represented elsewhere in the Park and none, including the oxbow wetland, are unique to the area to be flooded or particularly distinctive in their composition. All of these areas are

Page 27

subject to browsing by a range of animal pests and threatened at the margins by plant pests, such as wilding pines and willows.

7.12 In addition, as noted earlier, during the botanical survey a single red mistletoe plant (listed as nationally At Risk) was discovered on a black beech tree along the margins of Dutch Creek. This tree was located within the Forest Park. Red mistletoe, although scarce, is well distributed throughout coastal to montane habitat on its relatively widespread host trees19, found both in the North Island and South Island, although less common in the North Island. Mistletoe is highly susceptible to possum browsing, which is held as the primary cause for the loss of beech mistletoes from large parts of New Zealand’s beech forests20.

7.13 Fernbird and long tailed bats were detected within the DOC administered land. The location and analysis of these species is detailed sections 7, 12.3 and 12.4 of the TER and discussed further in paragraphs 7.30 and 7.34 below.

Edge effects, weeds and drawdown effects

7.14 In addition, there would be edge and draw down effects along the new margins of the lake roughly equating to the possible degradation of some 10 ha of indigenous vegetation of one type or another. These have been calculated and detailed in section 12.2.2 of the TER.

7.15 At present the site is relatively weed free, but construction and operation of the reservoir and dam could bring new weeds into the area and spread existing weeds. Strict protocols in terms of on-site and off-site weed prevention and control will need to be applied during the construction period to ensure weeds do not become an issue here and cause degradation of the remaining ecological values. Once the reservoir is full, on-going weed control and education of recreational users will be essential to control and prevent invasion of a variety of weed (both terrestrial and aquatic). This is addressed in proposed consent condition 20(f) of Schedule One).21

19 A parasitic plant whose main hosts are mountain beech (N. solandri var. cliffortioides), black beech (Nothofagus solandri var. solandri), red beech (N. fusca), and silver beech (N. menziesii). However, it has been recorded as a parasite on a further 17 species (2 exotic) including puriri (Vitex luceans) and pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa). 20 For example: For example: Urlich, S., Hopkins, C.J., Thompson, T. 2007. The survival of Peraxilla mistletoes in the Tararua Range. Wellington Botanical Society Bulletin, 50: 37-47 21 Condition numbering as filed with the applications (Part D, RWSS Folder 2, Tab 2)

Page 28

Mitigation for indigenous vegetation effects

7.16 I have helped with the formulation a variety of mitigation measures to address the effects of the large extent of indigenous vegetation removal and inundation associated with the RWSS, as a co author of the IMOA report. This involved proposing a combination of recreation of lost habitats, in the form of planting pasture areas and recreating wetlands, as well as enhancement of existing degraded areas within this landscape (in the form of enrichment planting) fencing fragments from stock, legal protection, weed control and animal pest control.

7.17 Translocation or growing new plants from seed collected from the impacted specimen maybe the only option to address the loss of the observed red mistletoe within Dutch Creek, if no other specimens can be found within the proposed restoration and animal pest control areas. The mature beech- podocarp forests found adjacent to the RWSS, both on private and public lands (as discussed further presently), would provide ideal habit for the translocation of this species.

7.18 In terms of minimising the adverse effects in the drawdown zone, plantings of flax, knobby rush and cabbage tree are recommended to stabilise the exposed surfaces, provide suitable habitat for a range of fauna and suppress weed growth. Annual weed monitoring and control will be required in these zones to prevent the spread of a number of exotic species which will thrive in these areas, such as most willow species.

7.19 Further details on specific amelioration and monitoring measures for the impacts on indigenous vegetation are discussed in section 12 and 13 of the TER report, expanded in my response to Dr Keesing’s peer review of the report in Appendix XV of the TER, and in section 8 below.

7.20 If these measures are adopted I am satisfied that the adverse effects on indigenous vegetation and habitats would be adequately and appropriately minimised as far as practicable, acknowledging the degree of their ecological significance in terms of section 6(c) of the RMA, and as assessed in sections 6 and 7 above.

Page 29

Birds

7.21 The three main areas of concern I have in terms of adverse effects on birds and their habitats as detailed in section 12.3 of the TER, and further elaborated on in the peer review process (Appendix XV of the TER) are:

(a) A loss of forests, scrub and shrublands which are likely to provide an important food resource for indigenous frugivorous22 and insectivorous birds (e.g. tui and bellbird), especially in spring;

(b) modification of wader habitat on the Waipawa River; and

Mitigation for adverse effects on birds and their habitats

7.22 A long-term pest control programme suitable for controlling introduced mammalian predators and browsers within an appropriate forest or landscape where many forest fragments exist (i.e. poisoning, trapping and fencing) will in part mitigate for effects caused by displacement of native bush birds through loss of habitat. This programme will raise breeding success and adult survival within the locality relatively quickly, as significant productivity increases occur for most bush birds virtually as soon as targeted pest control begins. Thus there is expected to be no time lag between loss of habitat and increases in productivity from compensation efforts within the mitigation area, as long as pest control commences before flooding begins (as proposed) and is in addition to animal pest control currently being carried out in this locality.

7.23 For many indigenous birds, such as tui, bellbird and kereru, but particularly kereru, food supply is a necessary prerequisite for breeding. Control of ship rats and possums is the most effective method to increase the flowering and fruiting. This will help all three of these species, but especially kereru. While predator control can be seen as an immediate 'switch' that will assist the survival of eggs once laid, food supply will take some years to build up (as a result of replanting and on-going pest control), but will independently also influence the rate at which eggs are laid and chicks grow, as well as fledging success.

22 Mainly fruit and seed feeding

Page 30

7.24 The scale of the area of indigenous forest, scrub and shrublands lost to the RWSS reservoir and infrastructure may cause a decline in breeding success of these species (and amongst others) without replacement of habitat, even with sustained local animal pest control. Thus recreation of new habitat and enhancement of existing vegetation adjacent to the RWSS is also an essential ingredient to ensuring that native bird numbers and species diversity are retained, and ideally increased associated with the implementation of any offset mitigation package.

7.25 It also should be acknowledged that the new lake and its edges will provide new habitat for existing and presently less commonly occurring birds, such as shags and dabchick. There will also be an increase in the extent of shallow water habitat for species such as grey duck and pied stilt. The edges of the lake will provide new wetland habitat and restored vegetated corridors, which will provide substantial habitat for a host of birds, including pipit and fernbird.

7.26 Mammalian predators have a significant impact on falcon (as well as kiwi and blue duck, noting that these two species have not been detected within the RWSS footprint to date). Implementation of an on-going predator control programme in the Makaroro catchment could potentially benefit kiwi, blue duck and falcon as well as a wide range of other bird species. Blue duck have shown they can re-populate areas when the predation factor is reduced and this could well apply to the Makaroro River and Dutch Creek areas if an on-going predator trapping programme was implemented for the upper Makaroro catchment (as proposed, and discussed further below). In terms of falcon, animal pest control and protecting similar habitat to that which is lost is considered to be a suitable off-set / mitigation measure to compensate for the loss of habitat.

7.27 The braided riverbeds of the Makaroro River within the reservoir footprint do not appear to be providing habitat for many wading birds as only one banded dotterel male and chick were observed during site visits to the Scheme area and during only one survey event. The extent of mitigation required to address effects on braided river habitats for birds as a consequence of altered flows need not be extensive given that the proposed managed regime will, to an extent, replicate natural flows and the magnitude of existing threats to these habitats (refer to section 12.3.2 of the TER). Changes to the land adjacent to the lower Waipawa River, such as increased drainage and removal of trees for irrigation structures, may negatively change indigenous bird diversity and

Page 31

abundance in the locality however. The effects of these landscape changes are problematic to define and quantify, but do provide justification for mitigation and monitoring, at least initially, to gauge how well indigenous birds, and waders in particular, are adapting to the new land use regime.

7.28 As outlined further in Section 13 of the TER, it is recommended the direct losses of braided river habitat under the reservoir be mitigated by a targeted habitat enhancement programme in another reach of the Waipawa River Catchment with braided river habitat of similar or greater value23. This would involve plant pest control and other appropriate management measures, such as predator control to increase biodiversity values.

7.29 I conclude that the overall effects on birds are considered to be high on a local scale within the RWSS footprint, low to moderate at a catchment scale, and minor on a regional and national scale, provided the full suite of amelioration and monitoring measures recommended are adopted as part of the RWSS.

Bats

7.30 The risk of significant adverse effects on bats associated with the construction of the RWSS is considered to be high if no appropriate amelioration measures are implemented. The loss, modification or disturbance of the habitat within, and surrounding, the proposed reservoir and dam could have a significant negative effect on long tailed bats within the locality. This would result from in a loss of foraging, commuting, and most importantly, roosting areas. The most serious potential adverse effect on the bats will be the loss of mature native forest suitable as roosting sites critical for reproduction. There is insufficient data on the distribution of bats in the North Island to determine the scale of this effect at a national scale, but it is significant (without mitigation) at a local and possibly also regional scale.

Mitigation for adverse effects on bats

7.31 Analysis of the survey data shows roosting activity is highest within and in the vicinity of, the mature beech-podocarp forest at the confluence of the Makaroro River and Dutch Creek and within the large stand of beech-podocarp forest

23 Refer Project B as outlined in the IMOA, and discussed further below in section 8 of my evidence.

Page 32

across the Makaroro River, almost directly opposite from the Makaroro/Dutch Creek confluence24.

7.32 While the exact location of the roosting sites is not known, it is likely that bat roost trees will be lost due to flooding when the reservoir begins to fill. However, it will take approximately 7-12 months for this to happen, giving the bats ample opportunity to move to alternate roosts. In my opinion there are a variety of alternate roost sites outside of the reservoir area, within the Ruataniwha Reservoir Restoration Buffer and Catchment Enhancement Zone (as referred to in the IMOA and discussed below), which would receive on-going benefits from the pest control and habitat enhancement programme. Roost sites can also be created by planting cavity-bearing trees near to the shore of the reservoir and by installing artificial roost boxes similar to those deployed by DOC in South Canterbury and in Hamilton City. Bats may also lose foraging areas as the reservoir fills. However, new riparian zones will be created along the shore of the reservoir providing foraging opportunities for the bats, so this loss will be replaced by similar habitat as the lake fills and the newly protected and managed forest edges. In Kinleith pine forest, maternity roosts were positively associated with waterways25, and in Fiordland were usually within 500 m of the forest edge26.

7.33 The primary risk to bats is from the felling of roosting trees (pre-filling of the reservoir) while bats are resident in them, which could result in death or injury of bats, especially in maternity roosts occupied by pups. There is a low risk of this happening during the removal of scrub and scrubland vegetation, as this vegetation provides little opportunity for roosting sites. There is, however, the potential for felling of roosting trees if felling is carried out in more mature forest27. The risk of unintentionally killing bats in this manner will be substantially reduced, if not eliminated, by pre-tree felling bat surveys immediately prior to the commencement of tree-felling to establish whether any of the trees that are about to be cleared are being used as roosting sites. This is again required through proposed consent conditions (as discussed below).

24 Refer to Figures 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the TER for ABM station locations, using methods as detailed in s7.3 of the TER. 25 Borkin, K.M.; Parsons, S. 2011. Home range and habitat selection by a threatened bat in exotic plantation forest. Forest Ecology and Management 262: 845-852. 26 O’Donnell, C.F.J. 2001. Home range and use of space by Chalinolobus tuberculatus, a temperate rainforest bat from New Zealand. Journal of Zoology (London) 253: 253 - 264. 27 In summary any tree, native or exotic, that has cavity bearing potential or loose bark can provide roosting habitat for bats, and these trees \have been found to have a diameter at breast height generally greater than 25 cm

Page 33

Appropriated protocols to ensure the risk of injury or death during felling are minimised are well proven with techniques being refined and improved over the last several years. In the event that an actively-used roosting tree is identified, the removal of that tree should be delayed until the bats have moved on to another site.

7.34 A suite of proposed consent conditions have been developed as part of the RWSS application to ensure that overall effects on long-tailed bats are minimised during the construction process, and habitat is enhanced in the long- term. I refer to section 12.4.3 in the TER for further discussion on the scope and implementation methods required to minimise potential adverse effects on bats. Note that Table 22 and section 12.4.3 of the TER recommends that a bat management plan is prepared to address the potential risks associated with the RWSS on bats and their habitats. This recommendation has now been superseded by the proposed consent conditions which I outline in paragraphs 8.1 – 8.4 below, which satisfy the same requirements. If these avoidance, remediation, mitigation, (and in some instances, off-setting) as well as monitoring measures are implemented, then the risk for otherwise potentially significant effects of the RWSS on long-tailed bats can be managed to ensure that the presence of this population is maintained within this landscape, and protected over the long-term.

Lizards

7.35 Creation of the reservoir would result in direct loss of lizard habitat, and could result in direct mortality through drowning, habitat disturbance, injury or mortality from earthworks or vegetation clearance operations. Nonetheless, given that overall numbers appear to be low and that much habitat is suboptimal due to on-going predation, the Scheme is likely to result in minor effects on lizards at a district, regional and national scale. This is despite one At Risk lizard species being found – the Southern North Island forest gecko. This species, while At Risk, is widely distributed throughout the lower eastern North Island.

Mitigation for adverse effects on lizards

7.36 As the inundation would take place over 7 - 12 months it is expected that individuals would move up out of the flooded zone as the water level creeps up the valley terraces and occupy new habitats accordingly. However, there may be places where lizards are trapped on temporary islands as the water rises, as

Page 34

on the high promontory near the lower end of Dutch Creek. Animal predators (such as feral cats, rats and mice) are likely having an on-going and significant impact on the lizard population. The combined effects of displacement of lizards from their existing habitats into potentially less favourable habitats by inundation, and an increase in predation and lower reproductive success rates should lizards move into less favourable habitat, suggests there may be a risk of causing a loss of lizard abundance and diversity at a local scale, and I consider that appropriate measures are required to minimise these potentially adverse effects.

7.37 In the TER, I have recommended that a pre flooding survey and translocation programme (Table 22 and section 12.5.2 of the TER) is developed and implemented as part of the RWSS consent conditions in order to salvage and translocate lizards into appropriate receptor (donor) sites, which will themselves be enhanced. These donor sites will be found within suitable habitat adjacent to the RWSS in order to benefit from the wider pest control programme, and allow implementation of a targeted lizard pest control and habitat enhancement programme. The pre-flooding lizard survey & translocation programme would be subject to a Wildlife Act Permit issued by DOC28 and would consist of the following main procedures:

(a) Timeline: 6 week programme immediately prior to the flooding process. Lizard salvage & relocation to occur only between the months of October to March to maximise capture rates during warm weather.

(b) Identified primary habitat locations searches: to consist of seven stages across the scheme undertaken consecutively over the 6 weeks. The methodology used would consist of: (i) day searches; (ii) night spotlighting; (iii) pitfall traps & Onduline Artificial Retreats; (iv) closed-cell foam covers.

(c) Release locations will be identified & prepared prior to translocation, and be within the Ruataniwha Reservoir Restoration Buffer and Catchment Enhancement Zone (as referred to in the IMOA discussed below) in order to fully benefit from the pest control and habitat enhancement programme.

(d) Lizards to be relocated to available habitat that is equal or better in quality. Further local donor site enhancement will be undertaken to increase both the carrying capacity and habitat quality at the receptor locations.

28 As would all indigenous fauna habitat destruction and translocation procedures

Page 35

(e) The plan would also include a post-release population monitoring programme to determine establishment at new sites.

7.38 The specific consent conditions which would ensure the implementation of these requirements and likely candidate sites for this programme are discussed in section 8 below.

Terrestrial Invertebrates

7.39 The potential impacts of the Scheme on terrestrial invertebrates include:

(a) direct mortality of invertebrates during vegetation clearance, earthworks, and flooding;

(b) habitat loss/fragmentation, modification and disturbance; and

(c) habitat fragmentation (open areas created within relatively contiguous areas of habitat and division of habitat areas into isolated pockets).

Mitigation for adverse effects on invertebrates

7.40 No specific translocation or pre-construction surveys are considered necessary for terrestrial invertebrates. Clearance of vegetation before flooding is likely to destroy large populations of resident species (such as land snails), before they can relocate themselves. Careful transfer of topsoil, leaf litter, and decaying logs and other large woody debris among the restoration plantings, sourced from the vegetation clearance activities, would assist with the establishment of new invertebrate populations.

7.41 In addition, based on the known presence of the At Risk Hawke’s bay tree weta, specific measures are now recommended to translocate captured individuals of this species into suitable donor sites adjacent to the RWSS (as discussed further below, and with reference to the outcomes of the external peer review) . The specific methods to be used will be developed as part of a requirements of the proposed consent conditions, but will most likely involve further placement of weta boxes within the RWSS footprint (which were initially used to survey for this species) and translocating individuals occupying these into suitable donor sites. Habitat enhancement efforts should take into account the invertebrate species assemblages and supporting vegetation structure at the donor site, as well as at any potential mitigation sites. The integrity and condition of the

Page 36

invertebrate communities at the donor sites could be greatly improved by predator and stock exclusion.

7.42 An appropriate level of intensive, sustained and targeted pest control is recommended in indigenous forest areas within the locality that have similar characteristics and structure to those removed by the reservoir and dam footprint (refer to section 8 for further discussion on specific implementation methods and proposed consent conditions).

7.43 Measures to minimise the introduction of new invertebrate species will also be required and can be implemented in conjunction with the weed control programmes. These would include confining vehicle movements to tracks and ensuring construction vehicles, equipment and construction material are cleaned before arriving on the site. Weed hygiene during construction is a specific requirement of proposed consent conditions.

7.44 Provide that these measures are implemented, the RWSS is likely to result in only minor effects on terrestrial invertebrates at a local, regional and national scale.

8. AVOIDANCE, REMEDIATION, MITIGATION AND MONITORING

Relevant Proposed RWSS Consent Conditions

8.1 Section 12 and section 13 of the TER provide details of the recommended avoidance, remediation, mitigation, offsetting and monitoring measures to address any potential adverse effects on terrestrial indigenous fauna and flora and their habitats. Mr Daysh presents an update of the proposed consent conditions in his evidence (Exhibit SGD2). The key set of conditions (updated conditions 21 - 27 of Schedule One) are detailed under the header Reservoir Filling and Edge Rehabilitation Plan (RFERP), which outlines the measures required to avoid, remedy mitigate and monitor adverse ecological effects during construction and operation of the RWSS.

8.2 The RFERP conditions provide for the measures I have recommended for avoiding and remedying adverse ecological effects, as well as for direct mitigation measures and monitoring requirements to measure success, and allow for adaptive management responses should those measures not be successful. These proposed consent conditions are a critical component of the overall package to ensure that any adverse effects on terrestrial ecology are

Page 37

minimised. They generally correlate well to my amelioration and monitoring recommendations outlined in the TER. For example, there is a requirement for At Risk and Threatened and flora and flora translocation and associated habitat enhancement, and specifically detailed measures for bats.

8.3 The translocation of Hawke’s Bay tree weta, as recommended in point 2 of my response memo to Dr Keesing’s review (Appendix XV of the TER), although not specifically mentioned in the consent conditions, would be a required outcome of the RFERP plan (refer to proposed condition 20(j) lodged in Part D of the application document suite).

8.4 The RFERP Plan will also ensure that matters such as the timing of specific measures are undertaken to maximise capture surveys and habitat enhancement. For example, before translocation of any At Risk or Threatened species occur, habitat protection, enhancement and recreation needs to be underway and largely complete. This is particularly pertinent for bats and lizards. Before any animals are re-located into their new habitats structures, such as artificial bat roosts and artificial refuges for lizards, they need to be created and weathered in. In addition, pest control needs to be at a level that key animal pests are below best practice residual trap/track catch rates before any animals are translocated into that new habitat. These measures will be dealt with in the RFERP Plan as specified in proposed consent condition 20(f) requiring weed and animal pest control to commence with construction (a 54 month construction period is envisaged).

8.5 I note that my recommendation for transfer of soil, litter and other material from key forest and scrub clearance sites containing invertebrates and measures to limit the risk of foreign invertebrates entering the site have not been adopted (refer to section 12.2, Table 22 of the TER for these recommendations). I recommend that the RFERP conditions be amended to expressly ensure that these measures are included.

8.6 Translocation and pre-construction of lizards is indirectly referenced in the current proposed consent conditions, referring to the original proposed consent conditions 20 (f)vii, 20(h) and 20(j) lodged in Part D of the application document suite. However, I recommend that these conditions are amended to clearly require pre-flooding surveys and consequential translocation of any lizards found in accordance with the recommendations of Table 22 and sections 12.5.1 and 12.5.2 of the TER.

Page 38

Biodiversity Offset Methodology and Principles

8.7 Beyond those measures outlined above and which are primarily recommended to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects as assessed in the TER, a range of projects have been developed to ensure the proposed offsetting measures are comprehensively applied. I refer to those presently.

8.8 When developing suitable mitigation and offset/compensation measures for the residual adverse ecological effects associated with the RWSS, I used the Business and Biodiversity Offset Programme (BBOP) Standard29 and its 10 principles as a core objective (as detailed in section 13.1 – 13.3 of the TER). Application of offsetting in New Zealand has seen an adoption of several of these 10 BBOP principles in a number of projects I have been involved with over the last 5 years or so, notably the HMR Wind Farm proposal and the Dennsiton EMP appeal. The seven principles that support offsetting in the proposed draft NPS on Indigenous Biodiversity are a useful summation of how the BBOP principles can be applied in a New Zealand context.

8.9 The concept of no-net loss is the ultimate goal of a biodiversity offset approach (BBOP 2012)30. No-net loss refers to the point where biodiversity gains from targeted conservation activities match biodiversity losses due to the impact of a specific development project so that there is no net reduction in the type, amount and condition (quality) of biodiversity over space and time. A net gain occurs when biodiversity exceeds the point of no let loss. Achieving no net loss is not a prerequisite for using an offsetting approach, but in my opinion, should be promoted as a goal as part of good practice offsetting.

8.10 The BBOP principles have three theoretical concepts considered important for the successful delivery of an offset mitigation package as outlined by Gardner and Hase (2013)31. These are:

(a) Comparability and Equivalency – an explicit biodiversity loss/gain calculation or accounting system is required to demonstrate that

29 Business and Biodiversity Offset Programme (BBOP) guidance documents from 2009 and 2012 (available at http://bbop.forest‐trends.org/pages/guidelines) 30 BBOP 2012a. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) 2012. Resource Paper: No-net loss and Loss-Gain Calculations in Biodiversity Offsets. BBOP, Washington, D. C. http://bbop.forest-trends.org/pages/guidelines 31 Gardner, T. A., von Hase, A., Brownlie, S., Ekstrom, J. M. M., Pilgrim, J. D., Savy, C. E., Stephens, R. T. T., Treweek, J., Ussher, G. T., Ward, G and Kate, K. 2013. Biodiversity Offsets and the Challenge of Achieving No Net Loss. Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1-11

Page 39

biodiversity gains are comparable to losses and to track delivery of the offset mitigation. The tools to determine and monitor the offset packages in this regard include a selection of representative biodiversity values and measures, the choice of appropriate currencies to measure the biodiversity exchange (i.e. losses and gains), and defining an overall offset accounting system to balance biodiversity losses and gains and to help ensure equity in the type, distribution and temporal delivery of biodiversity gains compared to losses. I discuss the practical constraints of application of this principle associated biodiversity accounting models in a New Zealand context later in my evidence (paragraph 8.27).

(b) Additionality – evidence that benefits claimed as the offset are additional to management actions already being undertaken or committed to at proposed offset sites. In other words the gains in biodiversity from the conservation management activities at the offset sites need to be additional to those that would occur if no offset was to take place. This can include recreation of habitats and restoration/enhancement of degraded habitats (e.g. animal pest control). Figure 1 in Exhibit GK5 is a graphical representation of how implementing measures to avoid, minimise and restore impacts prior to offsetting combine with the offsets measures, resulting in no net loss of biodiversity and ideally a net gain outcome.

(c) Permanence – evidence that the offset benefits are secured in the long- term, ideally permanently by legal protection. It is important to note that, in my opinion, offset mitigation gains can be achieved through this ‘averted risk’ mechanism alone as legal protection will prevent removal (e.g. helicopter spraying of shrublands) and gradual degradation (e.g. stock grazing32) of these previously unprotected remnants.

8.11 I have also considered those polices and schedules within the proposed draft National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS IB)33 that relate to off-sets and compensation as guidance during my assessment. While I understand the NPS has no statutory weight, its off-setting principles are grounded by international scientific research and thus provide a useful reference tool when assessing the effects of a project, particularly where the applicant has used the principles of biodiversity offsetting as a benchmark test. Firstly, I was

32 as fencing to exclude stock is a prerequisite for legal protection 33 Ministry for the Environment. 2011. Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment

Page 40

mindful of the mitigation hierarchy (as outlined in the proposed draft National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity NPS - Policy 5)34. It states that councils are to manage effects either through plans or non-regulatory methods using this hierarchy:

(a) Avoid adverse effects;

(b) Where adverse effects cannot be avoided, remedy;

(d) Where adverse effects cannot be adequately mitigated, offset any residual effects in accordance with principles set out in Schedule 2.

8.12 Schedule 2 of the NPS IB takes a “Biodiversity Offset Methodology and Principles” approach, which proposes that uncertainty and risk be explicitly built into loss-gain calculations, and that the design and implementation of the offsets are based on adaptive management with monitoring, on-going evaluation and notification as necessary.

8.13 There are also further matters which also need to be considered when taking an offsetting approach to biodiversity mitigation and compensation. Firstly, the application of biodiversity offsets can provide a useful mechanism by which the effects of an activity can be mitigated through the protection and or enhancement of other areas. That is, it includes mitigation or offsets which are not “on-site” or “in-kind” but which nonetheless show that an off-setting of effects and ideally, additional benefits, are achieved.

8.14 In my view this approach is a valid one, as long as the trade-offs are not at the expense of unsustainable losses of the equally significant ecological values found within the development’s footprint from a national perspective. This ‘trading up’ approach is also supported by recent literature (for example see Gardner et al, 2013). In my opinion this is the primary ‘gateway’ test which should be met before accepting out-of-kind trades. This relates to the concept of “limits to offsetting” 35. when assessing these trades. That is, if is the loss of the aspect of biodiversity being traded against is so significant or scarce that

34 refer to Exhibit GK5 for a graphical interpretation of how this hierarchy can be used in the RWSS assessment process to achieve no net loss or an over net gain of biodiversity. 35 Expressed in BBOP as: Limits to what can be offset: There are situations where residual impacts cannot be fully compensated for by a biodiversity offset because of the irreplaceability or vulnerability of the biodiversity affected.

Page 41

offsetting cannot adequately compensate for the loss accrued, then offsetting is not appropriate. As explained in paragraph 7.9 above, I do not consider any of the indigenous habitats at issue for the RWSS fall into that category.

8.15 Stakeholder engagement and input into the design of an offsetting package is also an important BBOP principle. I was involved in the stakeholder consultation process from the inception of the RWSS environmental effects studies. As Mr Daysh outlines in section 6 of his evidence, key stakeholders were involved throughout all stages of the terrestrial ecology studies, including methodology design, review of survey and analysis results, and had meaningful input into the design of the offset packages I was primarily involved with (Projects A, B and C as discussed below). In the March 2012 workshop experts from other disciplines also attended.

8.16 One outcome of the stakeholder consultation process was the desire of some stakeholders to focus animal pest control on blue duck and their habitats, even though this species has not been detected in the RWSS footprint by any recent surveys. This desired offset is reflected in the performance targets of Project C in the IMOA (refer to section 3.3.3). As BBOP (2012) note, what is needed to achieve successful offsetting can mean different things to different stakeholders.

Integrated Mitigation and Offset Programme

8.17 The specific biodiversity mitigation and offset packages are described in the IMOA report, with proposed Conditions 1 to 3 in Schedule Two of the proposed conditions lodged with the RWSS application suite comprising the implementation method. The residual terrestrial ecology effects for which the IMOA packages account for and are addressed in my evidence are:

(b) Edge effects. The assumed detectable edge effects area, which would be adversely affected is 10 ha.

(c) Braided river habitat. The area of braided river habitat (gravel river bed) lost under the reservoir and dam footprint is calculated to be 73.97 ha.

Page 42

(d) Wetland habitat. The area of ecologically significant wetland and seep zone habitat, which would be lost is estimated to be 5.11 ha.

8.18 The biodiversity offset/compensation projects in the IMOA, as a whole offset package, are part of an integrated upper-Tukituki River catchment wide approach to enhancing biodiversity. The specific projects I have helped develop and which expand on the recommendation of the TER report (refer to section 13) are:

(a) Project A: Ruataniwha Reservoir Restoration Buffer and Catchment Enhancement Zone;

(b) 3.2 Project B: Ruataniwha Riparian Enhancement Zone (River Halo Project); and

8.19 These packages have been designed with a holistic ecological landscape view in mind, so that they are all ecologically linked and will achieve a number of benefits for a range of vegetation and habitat types as well a range of indigenous fauna and flora in this landscape. When these projects are combined, and excluding the other projects which will also create biodiversity gains, potentially over 2,700 ha of habitats, containing a wide range of indigenous species, including existing habitat for many At Risk and Threatened flora and fauna, would receive targeted habitat protection and enhancement management for at least thirty years (refer to Figures 36 & 37 in the TER, my response memo to Dr Keesing’s peer review in Appendix XV of the TER, and Exhibit GK 6. The success of this package relies on the combined effect of a number of management approaches within this mosaic of habitats. These relatively biodiverse, but often fragmented and degraded, lowland habitats grade into upland habitats where nationally Threatened ‘icon’ species such as

36 The 185.18 ha of habitat for Threatened and At Risk Species that will be affected equates to the total affected area in the reservoir footprint (e.g. the sum of the areas of indigenous vegetation, indigenous treeland, braided river habitat and wetland habitat identified as being lost in the points above); not an additional affected area.

Page 43

blue duck and kiwi reside, so that there are potential wider ecological benefits where buffer and corridor enhancement functions can also be restored and enhanced.

8.20 Fencing forests, wetlands and scrubland from stock, substantial active replanting of riparian margins of the reservoir and adjacent land, weed control in braided river beds, restoration of wetlands, encouraging legal protection of areas on private land, as well as widespread and targeted animal pest control, are all proposed.

8.21 Rather than improve habitat located outside of the ecological landscape which the RWSS resides in, all of these offset projects have been located within the same catchment as near as possible, and often adjacent, to the impact site to ensure that the biodiversity gains will directly and indirectly replace, improve and protect the biodiversity losses incurred within the Makaroro River and Waipawa River sub-catchments of the greater Tukituki River catchment.

8.22 Improvements of the quality of habitat will be achieved through a process of habitat recreation (direct replanting of pasture), restoration (e.g. fencing degraded areas from stock and replanting margins and canopy gaps), habitat enhancement (e.g. long-term pest control over degraded areas or improving existing potential habitat utilisation opportunities for key At Risk or Threatened species) secured by habitat protection (through permanent legal protection such as covenants). This relies on agreement of a number of third party landowners to ensure successful implementation. The success of the on-going management of these areas requires permanent legal protection over them.

8.23 As explained in paragraph 8.10 above, the concept of ensuring permanence of an offset can also be viewed as a biodiversity offset in itself, as well as securing the management gains associated with measures such as stock exclusion and animal pest control. In this regard, Offset Project B provides assistance (including financial) for landowners to legally protect existing areas of wetland, bush and scrub. In my experience, particularly as a regional representative for QEII National Trust from 1998 until 2004, I have found landowners are usually very willing to protect valuable natural features, especially when a contribution to the costs associated with fencing from stock and to on-going management is made.

Page 44

8.24 I note, when viewing the evidence of Mr Hansen, that letters of support have been received from three private landowners directly adjacent to the RWSS, reservoir signalling an ‘in principle’ support or agreement for their land to be applied to the IMOA projects to varying extents, and which (subject to confirmation of the respective agreements), would protect up to 330 ha of currently unprotected land, much of which has existing significant ecological features or restoration/enhancement potential. In addition DOC has signalled that the DOC administered Ruahine Forest Park lands are potentially available for enhancement activities. I discuss how these lands could contribute to the amelioration and offset measures proposed natural features in paragraphs 8.32 – 8.40 below.

8.25 The IMOA also takes a long-term view for contributing to management, and the 30 year timeframe will allow sufficient time for the offset areas to be managed, and their natural values improved to a state where they have offset the residual direct losses associated with the construction and operation of the RWSS.

8.26 Under the proposed conditions a Ruataniwha Biodiversity Advisory Board is to be established prior to construction of the dam to ensure that these packages are successfully managed and delivered over their 30 year implementation. As stated in the IMOA, the Advisory Board’s primary role would be to: “receive the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Programme Annual Report required in the proposed conditions of resource consents for the Scheme, to guide the prioritisation of activities, and to ensure delivery of the proposed projects within the agreed timeframes.”

8.27 I have not used an offsetting accountancy type model in my loss-gain assessment for the RWSS. This is based on my experience in the HMR and EMP consent processes. In particular, I was present at the Denniston hearing when the Court decided to discard the modelling approach because of seemingly irresolvable differences of opinion between the experts and opt for the ‘traditional’ approach by coming to a decision based on balancing the significance of the adverse impacts against the benefits of proposed mitigation and offsetting, with the benefit of expert opinion. The Court referred to this as ‘sticking to the knitting’. These biodiversity accounting models are largely in their infancy and experimental stage in the New Zealand context, and their use is severely limited by a lack of agreement between ecologists on a number of key metrics and input attributes critical to their validity.

Page 45

8.28 Rather, I have qualified the loss of habitats by tabulating the quantity of the areas of habitat lost (as detailed in section 12.2 of the TER, and above in my evidence at paragraphs 7.3 – 7.9), as well as assessing their ecological quality in terms of the ecological significance of the habitats within an ecological and catchment context, and the value of these habitats to key indigenous fauna and flora species. These assessments of habitat quality for specific habitats and fauna groups are addressed throughout sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and section 12 of the TER.

8.29 Both biodiversity quantity and quality can be measured at the offset sites as well as the impact sites using standard and proven monitoring methods without having to use a biodiversity accounting model. For example, there are a number of vegetation, indigenous fauna and animal pest density survey techniques, widely used and accepted throughout New Zealand, which can measure key biodiversity quantity and quality attributes. Appropriate monitoring regimes using these techniques will be required in the detailed development of the mitigation and offset packages, guided by the Biodiversity Advisory Board, as well as in the RFERP, to ensure that the gains at the offset sites are being accurately measured.

8.30 As indicated in my assessments (e.g. refer to paragraphs 7.3 – 7.9 above), while the effects of the RWSS on indigenous habitats is significant, none of the values are so scarce or unique that their loss would cause irreparable damage from a wider Tukituki catchment, regional or national context, and thus trade- offs associated with the mitigation measures proposed can be made – that is, the losses are not so great that avoidance could be viewed as the only option available in the mitigation hierarchy approach. Note however, that this statement needs to be framed in the context of successful implementation and on-going monitoring/feedback contingencies of all of the relevant proposed consent conditions and offset packages.

8.31 Consequently, when the complete biodiversity avoidance, remediation, mitigation, offset and monitoring measures are seen as a whole package it is apparent to me that the synergistic positive effects created by their successful implementation will adequately address the losses incurred as a result of the RWSS.

Page 46

Further detail on offset sites

8.32 I am aware that negotiations are underway between HBRIC Ltd representatives and several landowners adjacent to the proposed reservoir. As noted above, these negotiations have led to letters of support being received from three key landowners in relation to provision of areas of land for the offset projects. The areas subject to these arrangements are shown as Figures GK7.1 – GK7.5 and Table GK7.1 in Exhibit GK7.

8.33 This includes 19.74 ha of riparian margin (buffer) planting and enhancement/legal protection of 25.22 ha of indigenous vegetation, 12 ha of which comprise of beech-podocarp forest along the margins of the Makaroro River, immediately downstream of the proposed dam face (refer to Figure GK7.4 in Exhibit GK7).

8.34 HBRIC Ltd representatives and the owners of Smedley Station have signalled agreement (in principle) for HBRIC Ltd to purchase land known as the “Smedley Exchange Block”. Of this exchange block, after flooding and proposed exchanges with Pan Pac for pine plantation land lost, I have calculated that up to approximately 285 ha37 would be available for biodiversity remediation, mitigation and offset purposes (refer to the habit breakdown Table GK7.1 and Figure GK7.5 in Exhibit GK 7). It is envisaged that the area would be secured with permanent legal protection. If this block is able to be acquired by HBRIC Ltd it, would substantially exceed the area that I consider is strictly necessary as an offset area as specified in Project A of the IMOA report (i.e. 100 ha). Only part of this block would need to be acquired by HBRIC Ltd to meet the area required for offset as specified in Project A. I understand that ultimately whether the block can be acquired will come down to commercial negotiations on a willing seller, willing buyer basis.

8.35 These areas combined equate to a total area of about 330 ha being potentially available for biodiversity recreation, restoration and enhancement purposes, all secured by permanent legal protection.

8.36 The biodiversity enhancement opportunities of securing and managing these areas is threefold:

37 NB: Possibly some of this would go into manuka honey production if purchased in the first 20 years to provide some return but that this is generally compatible with the overall restoration purposes

Page 47

(a) Firstly it would provide a secure ‘home’ for much of the RFERP requirements by protecting and enhancing a variety of suitable new habitats for translocating indigenous flora and fauna (such as red mistletoe, lizards, fernbird and long tailed bats) as part of the construction process38;

(b) It would provide a suitable location for fulfilling, and in some cases exceeding, the objectives of Project A: Ruataniwha Reservoir Restoration Buffer and Catchment Enhancement Zone (as detailed in section 3.1 of the IMOA report) by creating a riparian buffer around part of the lake and enabling restoration/enhancement over 285 ha of land within the newly formed lake’s sub-catchment (in place of the 100 ha of such restoration proposed under Project A); and

(c) Once the objectives of the RFERP have been met, there is also suitable habitat in the Smedley ‘Exchange Block’ to meet one of the key performance targets of Project C: Ruataniwha Threatened Species Habitat Enhancement (refer to section 3.3 of the IMOA report) pertaining to protection and long-term management of long-tailed bat habitats.

8.37 Also included within the proposed offsetting projects is the 314 ha of the Waipawa River, where targeted weed control to restore braided river habitat is proposed (focussing on willow and lupin), as outlined section 3.2 of the IMOA report (Project B: Ruataniwha Riparian Enhancement Zone (River Halo Project)). This area is largely under the control of HBRC and therefore is “available” for this project in terms of the ability to implement the mitigation works.

8.38 Referring to the total shown in Table 3 below, I calculate that conservatively at least 399 ha of the land potentially available for mitigation and offsetting as outlined in the preceding paragraphs lies within National Priority 1 land for Biodiversity Protection39.

8.39 In addition, an unspecified area of protected public land administered by DOC is also potentially available for animal pest control related activities and potentially

38 Translocation, restoration and enhancement of habitats for threatened and at risk species, such as long- tailed bats, mistletoe, falcon, lizard species and fernbird which will be secured by permanent legal protection. There is likely to be about 190 ha of indigenous habitats suitable in the Smedley Exchange Block 39 This includes 314 ha of braided river bed in the Waipawa River, 73 Ha of land within the ‘Smedley Exchange Block’ plus 12 ha of potentially covenanted indigenous forest along the margins of the Makaroro River. 40 Refer to the letter of support produced by Mr Hansen, and discussed further below.

Page 48

also available for translocation of At Risk and Threatened species.40 As the eastern Ruahine Forest Park is over 94,000 ha in size, and Gwavas (Wakarara) Conservation Area is some 2,800 ha, there is more than sufficient land available for Project C related animal pest control projects in the Makaroro River catchment as only up to 1,100 ha is required for RWSS related offsets (Project C in particular). This means that should any of the privately owned areas not be secured, there is likely sufficient DOC administered land available to achieve the relevant translocation and habitat enhancement objectives of the RFERP conditions and performance targets of Project C as detailed in the IMOA.

8.40 Table 3 gives an indication of the quantum of land potentially available through landowner letters of support for mitigation and/or offset measures pertaining to terrestrial ecology.

Mitigation/RFERP (ha) Offset /IMOA (ha) Landowner/Project Hall Buffer Planting - Project A 6.16 Wilson Buffer Planting - Project A 7.42 Covenant - Project A & Project C 13.14 Species Translocation Habitat 13.14 Smedley Buffer Planting - Project A 6.16 Covenant Project B 12.08 Purchase - Project A & Project C 285.00 Translocation Habitat* 190.76 DOC Animal Pest Control - Project C 1100.00 Translocation Habitat Waipawa River Bed Braided River Weed Control - Project B 314.00

TOTALS 203.90 1743.96

NB: *all remnant indigenous vegetation on Smedley Exchange Block Translocation area also likely available on adjacent DOC land but extent as yet to be determined

9. COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS

9.1 I have been provided with copies of the submissions received on Change 6. Relevant to my area of expertise I address the following issues raised by the following submitters specifically:

(a) The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) – Issues Raised:

40 Refer to the letter of support produced by Mr Hansen, and discussed further below.

Page 49

 Effects of the dam footprint on terrestrial ecology – section 4.5 a-c; and

 Mitigation and biodiversity offsets – section 4.5 d – i.

(b) The Department of Conservation – Issue Raised:

 Ecological effects of associated with construction and inundation of 22ha of land administered by DOC – section 5.3.

 Inadequate monitoring and adaptive management conditions – Appendix 3 section 22.

 Reliance on third parties to adopt proposed offset mechanisms – Appendix 3 section 23 and Appendix 4 section 1a iii and section 3 (ii) ( I note this point in particular is raised by a number of submitters) .

 The RWSS will not protect significant values of wetlands – Appendix 3 section 25.

 The RWSS will not protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna – Appendix 3 section 29 ii.

 The RWSS will not have regard to the intrinsic value of ecosystems Appendix 3 – section 30 iii.

 Effects, including cumulative effects, on the disturbance and permanent loss of a variety of indigenous vegetation communities and braided river within the reservoir, dam and spillway area, and the adequacy of the proposed avoidance, remediation and mitigation measures and packages – Appendix 3 sections 33 ii, 33 vii and 33 ix.

(d) Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society – Hastings/Havelock North Branch (F&B HHN) – Issues Raised:

 Ecological Effects of the dam footprint on terrestrial ecology and biodiversity of the RWSS – page 11.

Page 50

 Inadequacy of the mitigation packages to cover all of loss of mature podocarp forest, bat and falcon nesting sites – pages 11 and 13.

EDS

9.2 EDS, in section 4(h)(i) of their submission are: “concerned that mechanisms for avoiding and remedying adverse effects on biodiversity have not clearly been explored.” As discussed in section 8 of my evidence, I consider that suitable measures to avoid and remedy adverse effects on biodiversity associated with RWSS have been explored. In particular, the relevant proposed consent conditions (conditions 18 – 24 of Schedule One) associated with the RFERP, provide a number of methods to avoid and remedy effects on key biodiversity features, including translocation of lizards, invertebrates and a number of At Risk and Threatened fauna and flora species to avoid harming these species during the construction process. Weed control measures are proposed to avoid the introduction of new weed species and remedy the potential adverse effects associated with the spread of existing weeds during the construction process.

9.3 EDS considers that the application does not demonstrate that no net loss or preferably net gain will be achieved and that the proposed mitigation and offset package do not meet this standard (refer to section 4 (h)(ii). The submission states by the way of an example that: “the dam will result in the destruction of 242.37 ha of indigenous vegetation or habitats, yet the mitigation and offset packages will only recreate 46 ha of indigenous vegetation or habitats, the other mechanisms involve restoration or enhancement of existing indigenous vegetation or habitats. This does not address the loss of area occupied by indigenous species.”

9.4 Firstly, as I understand current RMA legislation and case law, there is no mandate to demonstrate a no net loss or net gain approach. However, I do acknowledge that attempting to achieve no net loss is considered to be current best practice and to this end section 13 of the TER and the IMOA have strived to design packages which can achieve this goal.

9.5 It also appears that EDS has differing expectations about what is the threshold for measuring when and how no net loss is achieved for the RWSS project to mine. In this vein I note that Gardner et al 2013 states: “The net in no net loss is indicative of the fact that some losses at the development site are inevitable and that exchanges may not be perfectly balanced—whether in time (e.g., where

Page 51

losses precede gains), space (no place is exactly the same as another), or type of biodiversity involved. Thus, in addition to the choices made in selecting the biodiversity components deemed at risk, subjective and legal judgments are also made regarding the acceptability of different kinds of exchanges, depending on the societal values of the stakeholders.”

9.6 Secondly, in responding to this concern of EDS, simply replanting 46 ha, or even 242 ha, of indigenous vegetation will not (of itself) adequately offset for the losses of mature podocarp beech forest or replace complex habitat for bats and lizards within any reasonable timeframe. In my opinion, it is better to use a mix of replacement and enhancement methods. In many cases, it is more effective to enhance existing degraded habitats as they retain core ecological functionality values that can be rapidly enhanced with suitable management, such as animal pest control, and then secure by some form of legal protection over these areas. Thus gains can be achieved by averting the loss and degradation of existing biodiversity by removing or reducing threats, not merely by replacing, or attempting to replace lost habitats. As stated in paragraphs 8.9, 8.22, 8.28 and 8.29 above, successful offsets are not merely about replacing the quantum lost but also including in the mix measures for improving the overall biodiversity quality of the offset.

9.7 Enhancement methods, such as pest control and fencing from stock, are well proven to work in most New Zealand ecosystems and relatively easily achievable additive and measurable net gain objectives. Given that these types of measures are all associated with Offset Projects A, B and C and will all fall within the same ecological landscape in which the loss is occurring, the likelihood is increased that indigenous species suffering habitat loss associated with the RWSS will be able to survive in this locality by moving to newly created and enhanced habitats adjacent or nearby to the RWSS footprint. These matters of improving quality and quantity of nature features within the same ecological landscape, combined with measures to ensure additionality and permanence (as discussed in paragraph 8.10 above), are the fundamental values underpinning the desired outcomes of offset projects A, B and C.

9.8 EDS considers that there is uncertainty about the ability of the applicant to implement the offset packages as they rely on the agreement of third parties and the land is not owned by the applicant (refer to section 4(h)(iii)). I have formed my opinion on the basis that agreements will be able to be reached with

Page 52

a range landowners to ensure the outcomes of each of the offset projects are able to be achieved. As stated in Mr Hansen’s evidence, letters of support have been received from three private landowners adjacent to the RWSS which would result (assuming arrangements with the landowners are concluded) in land being made available for biodiversity restoration and enhancement projects A, B and C, as well as the relevant biodiversity translocation requirements of the RFERP consent conditions.

9.9 I am also aware that the Department of Conservation has provided a letter of support indicating its willingness (in principle) to host on-going animal pest control within the Ruahine Forest Park (as produced by Mr Hansen). This would have a number of benefits, potentially also including for blue duck and/or kiwi habitat that is adjacent to current intensive pest control operations they are conducting41.

9.10 If these areas are combined, that means that there is approximately 1,744 ha of land that would potentially be secured for offset projects associated with the IMOA report, as well as sufficient land to meet the avoidance and remediation conditions of the RFERP within the DOC administered public land alone. As detailed in paragraphs 8.32 – 8.40 above this comprises of up to 330 ha of land surrounding and just below the RWSS reservoir for lake side riparian planting, general habitat enhancement and enhancement of species translocation donor sites, 314 ha of land associated with braided river bed weed control on the Waipawa River bed upstream of Caldwell Road, and more than 1,100 ha of DOC land available for animal pest control, as well as a presently unspecified, but more than likely sufficient area of land available for translocation and habitat enhancement purposes in addition to those found on the Smedley Exchange Block.

9.11 The EDS submission considers that there is an issue surrounding what happens if the funds are exhausted but the offsets have not been fully delivered and that conditions should be linked to outcomes to be achieved and not be fixed to projected amounts as these may vary. I agree with this concern and recommend that provisions are included in the consent conditions to ensure that the offset measures are successfully implemented regardless of the allocated finds as shown in the IMOA. However, it should be pointed out that these costs

41 For example the “Te Potae o Awarua” project: http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/getting-involved/in- your-community/volunteer-programme/Wanganui/te-potae-o-awarua-2008.pdf

Page 53

are capped in the sense that delivery of the projects has been costed using unit rates provided by HBRC staff experienced in delivering the type of works and activities outlined. Based on the experience of these advisors, and given provision for CPI adjustment, it is not anticipated that there will be a significant mismatch between funds available and achievement of the performance measures.

The Director General of Conservation

9.12 In his neutral submission, the Director General, in section 5.3, notes that approximated 22 ha of land will be inundated by the Makaroro Dam. In June 2013 Kessels Ecology prepared a summary report outlining the effects of the RWSS as they relate to DOC administered land, which were summarised from the detailed assessment contained in the TER. I have also discussed these effects in in paragraphs 7.10 – 7.13 of my evidence. I am satisfied that the overall amelioration and offset package proposed would adequately address terrestrial ecological effects associated with indigenous fauna and flora and their habitats within DOC administered land.

Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council

9.13 In section 22 of their submission, the Fish and Game Council (F&G) considers that the applications in their current form do not contain adequate monitoring and adaptive management conditions, and that if actions are required for breaches they are too uncertain and vague to be enforceable. Further, F&G consider that because several key management plans to manage the effects of the Scheme have not been provided, the Board is unable to assess whether the plans adequately address adverse effects.

9.14 In my experience, specific and detailed monitoring and adaptive management consent conditions do not need to be shown in detail for every aspect of the ecological issues they pertain too. Rather, in the spirit of an adaptive management process, the conditions need to be robust enough to ensure monitoring and adaptive management occurs as and when required once the detailed construction requirements and timelines have been developed, which is usually post granting of consents. This allows for best practice techniques to be used without being constrained by overly prescriptive consent conditions, which may not allow for the best possible solution or technique to be used. I do note that it is standard practice for consent conditions requiring biodiversity related

Page 54

management plans to be prepared subject to a rigorous independent peer review process.

9.15 Condition 21 of the proposed consent conditions for the RFERP during the construction period allow for this to occur, through the certification process where I expect the qualified HBRC ecologists (or other experts engaged by Consent Authorities) will be involved in ensuring the plan is robust and suitable to meet the objectives. Furthermore, the IMOA proposes the establishment of a Ruataniwha Biodiversity Advisory Board whose functions include the delivery of the proposed offset projects (section 4, IMOA), where the advisory board will act in independent peer review role and auditor.

9.16 In terms of performance monitoring I note that the annual meeting / reporting process with the Ruataniwha Biodiversity Advisory Board and HBRC Regional Planning Committee in Condition 2 of Schedule Two of the conditions sets out a process to ensure appropriate review of delivery of the Offset projects and allow for suitable contingencies (adaptive management) if and as required.

9.17 In section 23 of their submission F&G note that the offset projects shown in Projects A, B and C are dependent on negotiations with third party landowners which have not been agreed to as yet. As detailed in paragraphs 8.32 – 8.39 there is approximately 1,744 ha provisionally available for the amelioration and offset measures to occur on. The way proposed consent conditions are framed requires the consent holder to deliver the project outcomes specified in the IMOA, and how this is achieved is a “ways and means” question. I am confident that with the combined resources of HBRIC Ltd alongside the support of DOC and landowners in the area, that these projects will be delivered.

9.18 In section 25 of their submission, F&G contend that the RWSS will not protect the significant values of wetlands. I do not agree with this comment in relation to the construction and operational effects of the RWSS. The IMOA report, in section 3.1.2(point two) requires: “Local bunding of some wetland areas where there is an opportunity to retain water during drawdown periods (the proposed location of these wetland areas, totalling approximately 14 ha, is shown in Appendix 7)”. This will, in my opinion, adequately address the loss of 5.11 ha of wetland, most of which is degraded seep zone dominated by exotic pasture species on currently unprotected farmland.

Page 55

9.19 In section 29(i) of their submission F&G state that the RWSS will not protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. The primary focus of the three years of field work and analysis, as detailed throughout the TER, has focussed on identifying and recommending measures to address adverse effects of the RWSS on significant indigenous terrestrial fauna and flora and their habitats. The recommendations for suitable avoidance, remediation, mitigation and offset for these effects (as detailed in sections 12 and 13 of the TER and expanded on in my evidence in section 8 above) have been largely been adopted in the proposed consent conditions and through the relevant offset projects of the IMOA. I am thus satisfied, subject to minor amendments as detailed in my evidence above, that effects on significant flora and fauna and their habitats will be suitably avoided, remedied and mitigated to ensure that the overall net result will mean these habitats and species will be suitably protected.

9.20 F&G submit that the RWSS will not have regard to the intrinsic value of ecosystems. They also consider that that effects, including cumulative effects, on the disturbance and permanent loss of a variety of indigenous vegetation communities and braided river within the reservoir, dam and spillway area, as well as the adequacy of the proposed avoidance, remediation and mitigation measures and packages, are not addressed (I refer to their Appendix 3 sections 33 ii, 33iii, 33 vii and 33 ix).

9.21 I consider that when the relevant aspects of the RWSS application are viewed as an entire package, and subject to the additions in terms of securing land for the bulk of the IMOA offset packages as outlined in section 9 above, the effects on the biological and genetic diversity; and the essential characteristics that determine an ecosystem's integrity, form, functioning, and resilience which are impacted by the RWSS would be avoided, remedied, and mitigated (or offset). These measures are detailed in sections 12 and 13 of the TER and given effect to by the proposed consent conditions during the construction phase. Any residual and cumulative effects would be offset by the relevant offset packages presented in the IMOA. The combined positive effects of this integrated, holistic and catchment based approach to avoidance, mitigation and offsets, as explained in section 9 of my evidence, means there will be a not net loss of biodiversity associated with the construction and operation of the RWSS.

Page 56

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society – Hastings/Havelock North Branch

9.22 F&B-HHN contend that the mitigation packages proposed to mitigate for the RWSS dam and lake does not at all cover the loss of mature podocarp forest, native fish migration and the loss of NZ falcon and bat nesting sites.

9.23 Noting that I am not addressing the matter of native fish migration in this evidence, I specifically respond to the Society’s concerns relating to the loss of podocarp forest, the loss of falcon nesting sites and the loss of bat roosting sites. I agree that the remnants of podocarp forest found within the Scheme’s footprint, totalling some 10.61 ha42, are significant and thus mitigation is required to compensate for this loss. I also agree that the one falcon nest site observed in the 2011/12 survey period and the possible bat roost sites found are also significant. As stated in paragraph 9.14 above however, I contend that while these habitats are undoubtedly significant they are not so unique or under- represented in the Hawke’s Bay region that their loss would result in an irreversible loss unable to be mitigated for at any spatial scale assessed (for example at either a Tukituki River catchment or Hawke’s Bay region scale, as detailed in paragraphs 7.3 – 7.9 above). I consider that it is possible to ameliorate for these losses with a suite of appropriate avoidance, remediation, mitigation and offset measures as recommended in Table 22, sections 12 and 13 of the TER, which would be given effect to by the relevant proposed consent conditions and offset packages of the IMOA.

Other Relevant Submissions

9.24 I am also aware of a number of other submissions that raise similar issues to those stated in the submissions that I have identified and addressed above. I consider that my response to those submissions I have addressed above would equally apply to these additional submissions that I have not specifically mentioned (but which I am aware of, and have considered as to the issues identified in them in preparing this evidence).

Gerry Kessels 4 September 2013

42 Refer to row 7 in Table 1 (paragraph 4.2) of my evidence

Page 57

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT GK1 AMENDED PLANT SPECIES LIST

NB: species marked with “*” are introduced species (KMJ) and (BMcK) denotes additional species detected in July and August 2013

Gymnosperm trees and shrubs * Cryptomeria japonica japanese cedar (KMJ) Dacrycarpus dacrydioides kahikatea, white pine Dacrydium cupressinum rimu, red pine * Pinus radiata radiata pine Podocarpus cunninghamii Hall’s totara Podocarpus totara var. totara totara Prumnopitys ferruginea miro; brown pine Prumnopitys taxifolia matai; black pine

Monocotyledonous trees and shrubs Cordyline australis cabbage tree; ti-kouka Cordyline banksii forest cabbage tree; ti ngahere

Dicotyledonous trees and shrubs Aristotelia serrata wineberry; makomako * Berberis glaucocarpa barberry Brachyglottis repanda rangiora; bushman’s friend * Buddleja davidii buddleia Carmichaelia australis whip broom; maukoro Carpodetus serratus putaputaweta; marbleleaf Coprosma xcunninghamii Coprosma dumosa Coprosma grandifolia kanono; large leaved coprosma Coprosma lucida karamu; shining karamu Coprosma propinqua mingimingi Coprosma propinqua X robusta (KMJ) Coprosma rhamnoides thorny coprosma Coprosma rigida Coprosma robusta karamu Coprosma rotundifolia round-leaved coprosma Coprosma tenuifolia wavy-leaved coprosma Coriaria arborea var. arborea tree tutu Corokia cotoneaster korokio * Cotoneaster glaucophyllus cotoneaster (KMJ) Elaeocarpus hookerianus pokaka Fuchsia excorticata fuchsia; kotukutuku Gaultheria antipoda snowberry; tawiniwini Geniostoma ligustrifolium var. ligustrifolium hangehange Griselinia littoralis broadleaf; kapuka Hebe sp. Hebe stricta var. stricta koromiko Hedycarya arborea porokaiwhiri; pigeonwood Helichrysum lanceolatum niniao Hoheria sexstylosa houhere, lacebark Kunzea ericoides kanuka Leptecophylla juniperina ssp. juniperina Leptospermum scoparium var. scoparium manuka; red teatree Leucopogon fasciculatus mingimingi; kaikaitau * Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet Lophomyrtus obcordata rohutu * Lupinus arboreus tree lupin Melicope simplex poataniwha Melicytus ramiflorus mahoe Myrsine australis red matipo; mapou Myrsine divaricata (BMcK) Myrsine salicina toro Nestegis cunninghamii black maire Nestegis lanceolata white maire Nothofagus fusca red beech Nothofagus solandri var. cliffortioides mountain beech Nothofagus solandri var. solandri black beech Pennantia corymbosa kaikomako Peraxilla tetrapetala red mistletoe Pittosporum eugenioides lemonwood; tarata Pittosporum tenuifolium kohukohu, black matipo

Page 58

Pseudopanax arboreus five finger; puhou; whaupaku Pseudopanax crassifolius lancewood; horoeka Pseudowintera colorata pepperwood; mountain horopito Raukaua anomalus (KMJ) * Salix cinerea grey willow * Salix elaeagnos bitter willow * Salix fragilis crack willow Schefflera digitata pate; patae; kotete Sophora microphylla small leaved kowhai Sophora tetraptera large-leaved kowhai * Ulex europaeus gorse Weinmannia racemosa kamahi (KMJ)

Dicotyledonous lianes and related trailing plants Clematis paniculata clematis; puawhananga Clematis forsteri small white coprosma Metrosideros colensoi Metrosideros diffusa white climbing rata; akatea Metrosideros perforata white rata Muehlenbeckia australis pohuehue Parsonsia capsularis var. capsularis small flowered jasmine Parsonsia heterophylla New Zealand jasmine; kaihu Rubus cissoides tataramoa (KMJ) * Rubus fruticosus blackberry Rubus schmidelioides tataramoa

Psilopsids, Lycopods & Quillworts Huperzia varia hanging clubmoss; iwituna Lycopodium volubile climbing clubmoss Tmesipteris elongata fork fern

Ferns Adiantum cunninghamii maiden hair fern Asplenium bulbiferum hen and chickens fern; moku Asplenium bulbiferum x flaccidum Asplenium flaccidum hanging spleenwort; makawe Asplenium gracillimum hen and chickens fern Asplenium oblongifolium shining spleenwort Asplenium polyodon sickle spleenwort; petako Blechnum chambersii nini; lance fern Blechnum discolor piupiu; crown fern Blechnum filiforme thread fern; climbing hard fern Blechnum fluviatile kiwakiwa; kiwikiwi Blechnum minor swamp kiokio Blechnum novae-zelandiae kiokio Blechnum penna-marina alpine blechnum Cyathea dealbata ponga; silver fern Cyathea smithii soft-leaved tree fern; katote Dicksonia fibrosa wheki-ponga; kuripaka Dicksonia squarrosa wheki; harsh tree fern Doodia australis rasp fern Histiopteris incisa water fern Hypolepis ambigua Leptopteris hymenophylloides single crepe fern; heruheru Microsorum pustulatum ssp. pustulatum hounds tongue; kowaowao Paesia scaberula scented fern; matata; ring fern Pellaea rotundifolia round-leaved fern Pneumatopteris pennigera gully fern Polystichum neozelandicum ssp. zerophyllum Polystichum vestitum prickly shield fern; punui Pteridium esculentum bracken; rauaruhe Pyrrosia eleagnifolia leather-leaf fern

Orchids Corybas sp. helmet orchid Earina mucronata spring orchid; peka-a-waka Pterostylis graminea grass-leaved greenhood

Grasses, Sedges & Rushes * Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernal Austroderia fulvida kakaho; toetoe Baumea tenax baumea * Bromus hordeaceus soft brome Carex geminata rautahi Carex maorica Maori sedge Carex secta pukio

Page 59

Carex sp. Carex virgata swamp sedge * Cortaderia selloana pampas grass Eleocharis acuta spike sedge (KMJ) Eleocharis gracilis slender spike sedge * Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog Isolepis reticularis * Juncus articulatus jointed rush * Juncus conglomeratus soft rush * Juncus effusus leafless rush Juncus sarophorus fan-flowered rush Luzula sp. Machaerina sinclairii Machaerina Microlaena avenacea bush rice grass; oat grass * Poa annua annual poa Uncinia uncinata hook sedge, watu Uncinia sp.

Remaining Monocotyledonous herbs Astelia fragrans bush flax; kakaha Astelia solandri kowharawhara Dianella nigra blueberry; turutu Phormium cookianum ssp. cookianum mountain flax; wharariki Phormium tenax flax

Dicotyledonous herbs Acaena anserinifolia bidibid * Anaphalioides sp. (KMJ) * Callitriche_stagnalis starwort (KMJ) Cardamine debilis New Zealand bitter cress Centella uniflora centella * Cirsium palustre marsh thistle * Cirsium vulgare Scotch thistle * Conyza sumatrensis broad-leaved flea-bane (KMJ) Haloragis erecta shrubby haloragis Hydrocotyle elongata * Jacobaea vulgaris ragwort Lemna disperma common duckweed Lobelia angulata pratia * Lotus pedunculatus lotus * Ludwigia palustris water purslane * Mycelis muralis wall lettuce * Myriophyllum aquaticum parrot’s feather Nertera depressa common nertera Oxalis sp. oxalis * Plantago lanceolata ribwort; narrow-leaved plantain * Plantago major broad leaved plantain (KMJ) * Prunella vulgaris selfheal * Ranunculus flammula spearwort * Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup * - Ranunculus sceleratus celery buttercup (KMJ) * Rumex sp. dock * Trifolium repens white clover Urtica incisa scrub nettle

Page 60

EXHIBIT GK2 JULY-AUGUST 2013 BIOACOUSTIC BLUE DUCK/KIWI SURVEY

Three Department of Conservation automated digital sound recorders (Version D.2) were deployed alongside Dutch Creek between 31/07/2013 and 15/08/2013 (15 nights) in order to detect blue duck or kiwi calls. While there is no specific data available for detection rates using these bioacoustic recorders for blue duck, Stewart (2010)43 found that kiwi call detection rates were very similar to what a person would be able to detect. The units were at the following locations (grid references using NZTM): 1. E2790060 N6157540 2. E2790174 N6157849 3. E2790064 N6158049 The recorders were located at intervals on landscape features offering good acoustic coverage while minimising background stream noise. Operation intervals were selected to cover crepuscular calls of birds, focussing on optimising detection of blue duck calls, as while as nocturnal calls of any kiwi which may have been present. The effective recording range of these recorders is estimated to be 400 m on a calm night with minimal background noise. The units were pre-set on a “low” (0 - 4 kHz) detection frequency. The recorders were set to record between 05.00 and 09.00 and then again between 16.30 and 21.30 each day (9 hours/dusk/evening/night/dawn/morning). This gave a total recording time of 9 hours per day/night period. The flight calls of blue duck and kiwi were searched for using Raven™ software. A total of 135 effective recording hours per recorder were obtained. Rain and wind did have a negative effect on detection ability and data analysis, ranging from approximately 10% to 15% per unit. No blue duck or kiwi calls were detected in the data captured during this period.

43 Stewart, P. 2009. The response of kiwi to predator control and advocacy, Moehau 2000 to 2009. Unpublished Red Admiral Ecology report for the Department of Conservation.

Page 61

EXHIBIT GK3 MODIFIED AT RISK AND THREATENED SPECIES TABLES

Table GK3.1 Threatened species found within the reservoir footprint; Reference: KAL = Kessels & Associates’ observation, BW = BioWeb 2011.

Threat Group Common name Scientific name Reference classification Long-tailed bat Chalinolobus Mammals Nationally Vulnerable KAL 'North Island' tuberculatus New Zealand Birds Falco novaeseelandiae Nationally Vulnerable BW, KAL bush falcon Charadrius bicinctus Birds Banded dotterel Nationally Vulnerable KAL bicinctus Table GK3.2 At Risk species found within the reservoir footprint; Reference: KAL = Kessels & Associates’ observation, BW = BioWeb 2011. Threat Referenc Group Common name Scientific name classification e Phalacrocorax carbo Birds Black shag Naturally Uncommon KAL novaehollandiae Anthus New Zealand Birds novaeseelandiae Declining KAL pipit novaeseelandiae North Island Bowdleria punctata BW, KAL Birds Declining fernbird vealeae Himantopus himantopus Birds Pied stilt Declining KAL leucocephalus Galaxias aff. divergens Fish Dwarf galaxias Declining BW 'northern' Fish Longfin eel Anguilla dieffenbachii Declining BW Plants Red mistletoe Peraxilla tetrapetala Declining KAL Southern North Mokopirirakau “southern Reptiles Island forest Declining KAL North Island” gecko Invertebrate Hawke’s Bay Hemideina trewicki Sparse KAL s tree weta Table GK3.3 Threatened species found within a 10 km radius around the reservoir area (as recorded in BioWeb data) ; Reference: KAL = Kessels & Associates’ observation, BW = BioWeb 2011.

Group Common name Scientific name Threat classification Reference Hymenolaimus Birds Blue duck, whio Nationally Vulnerable malachorhynchos BW, KAL Plants Annual fern Anogramma leptophylla Nationally Vulnerable BW Table GK3.4 At Risk species found within a 10 km radius around the reservoir area (as recorded in BioWeb data) ; Reference: KAL = Kessels & Associates’ observation, BW = BioWeb 2011.

Group Common name Scientific name Threat classification Reference Plants Giant maidenhair Adiantum formosum Relict BW Plants Yellow mistletoe Alepis flavida Declining BW Plants Coprosma pedicellata Declining BW Plants Blanket fern Pleurosorus rutifolius Naturally Uncommon BW Plants Native verbena Teucridium parvifolium Declining BW

Page 62

EXHIBIT GK4 LENZ THREATENED ENVIRONMENT CLASSIFICATION CATEGORIES & ECOLOGICAL DISTRICT MAP

LENZ is a surrogate for the likely past (pre-human) pattern of terrestrial ecosystems and their associated biodiversity. When LENZ is combined with an analysis of changes in the Land Cover Database and these data are compared to a national database of the protective status of land, it has become possible to identify broad patterns of change, vulnerability and protection. The Threatened Environment Classification (TEC) assigns one of six threat categories on the basis of: (a) past loss of indigenous vegetation and braided river habitat (% indigenous vegetation & braided river habitat left), and (b) current legal protection (% protected). The six threat categories are shown in the Table below.

The aim of “National Priority 1” is to protect indigenous vegetation associated with land environments (defined by Land Environments of New Zealand at Level lV) that have 20% or less remaining indigenous cover. The maps of National Priority 1 have been prepared at LENZ Level 4 (i.e. 500 land environments) and show land environments with 20% or less remaining indigenous vegetation from a New Zealand wide perspective. Table GK4.1 Threatened Environment Categories Category Criteria Category Name 1 < 10 % indigenous vegetation left Acutely Threatened 2 10-20 % indigenous vegetation left Chronically Threatened 3 20-30 % indigenous vegetation left At Risk 4 >30 % left & 10 % protected Critically Under-protected 5 >30 % left & 10-20 % protected Under-protected Less Reduced & Better 6 >30 % left & > 20 % protected Protected

Figure GK4.1 Location of the proposed reservoir site within the wider landscape

Page 63

Table GK4.2 Analysis of The RWSS Footprint at a Threatened Environment Level using combined LCDB3 and TER vegetation layer data

Area in indigenous vegetation or Percent of Regional habitat (Ha) Total Acutely threatened 11,865.72 2.47% Chronically Threatened 49,329.89 10.29% At Risk 27,926.52 5.82% Critically Underprotected 17,884.52 3.73% Underprotected 28,905.64 6.03% Less reduced and better protected 343,603.87 71.66% 479,516.16 100.00% Percentage of regional Tukituki Catchment total for category Acutely threatened 2,565.44 8.53% 21.62% Chronically Threatened 4,449.52 14.80% 9.02% At Risk 416.08 1.38% 1.49% Critically Underprotected 157.76 0.52% 0.88% Underprotected 158.03 0.53% 0.55% Less reduced and better protected 22,316.51 74.23% 6.49% 30,063.34 100.00% 6.27%

Percentage of Tukituki Total effected area (reservoir, dam, spoil sites) Catchment total Acutely threatened 65.22 26.91% 0.55% 2.54% Chronically Threatened 158.65 65.46% 0.32% 3.57% At Risk 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Critically Underprotected 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Underprotected 3.66 1.51% 0.01% 2.32% Less reduced and better protected 14.84 6.12% 0.00% 0.07% 242.37 100.00% 0.05% 0.81%

LCDB3 Classes included in analysis: Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods' 'Coastal Sand and Gravel' 'Fernland' 'Flaxland' 'Gravel and Rock' 'Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation' 'Indigenous Forest' 'Manuka and/or Kanuka' 'Matagouri or Grey Scrub' 'River' 'Sub Alpine Shrubland' 'Tall Tussock Grassland'

Page 64

EXHIBIT GK5 THE MITIGATION HIERARCHY

Figure GK5.1 Adherence to the Mitigation Hierarchy (i.e. implementing measures to avoid, minimise and restore impacts prior to offsetting) to limit adverse residual impacts to those that can be fully offset is crucial for achieving no net loss of biodiversity. (Figure adapted from BBOP, Rio Tinto, W Australia EPA).

Page 65

EXHIBIT GK6 MITIGATION AND OFFSET SUMMARY TABLE

Page 66

Target Animal Key Benefit Species Other Management Project Area Time Frame Pests and Habitats Requirements The DOC land, Smedley Exchange Block combined with the Hall and Wilson Not specified but covenants, contains should be at least 10 Fencing from stock; sufficient land to years, including during Cats, rats, possums soil and humus maximize benefit and construction period and mustelids. Deer A variety of habitats translocation; weed create suitable initial and proposed post and hedgehog control supporting a range of invasion minimization RFERP enhancement within commissioning may also be required; indigenous birds, bats, and control protocols requirements and around the Project monitoring in order to specifically control of lizards, invertebrates, during and after A Buffer and maximize benefits and hedgehogs around and vegetation. construction, bat roost Enhancement Zone allow translocated lizard translocation enhancement and Project by providing populations and sites. replacement. safe havens and planted areas to translocation sites for establish. key at risk/threatened fauna and flora species. Riparian Buffer – 46 ha (this is the minimum estimated Not the principal area but it may well purpose of this project increase with fencing but expectation is that Project A: practicalities restoration and A variety of habitats Planting 267,700 Ruataniwha necessitating the best catchment supporting a range of plants; Fencing from Reservoir Buffer line approach). 10 years enhancement over the indigenous birds, bats, stock; legal protection and Catchment prescribed 10 year lizards, invertebrates, of 160 ha; ongoing Enhancement Wetland creation – period will be covered and vegetation. weed control. Zone 14 ha by pest control Enhancement areas undertaken as part of – 100 ha. RFERP requirements. Total minimum area – 160 ha

Project B: 600 ha for protection 30 years Not principal purpose A variety of habitats Fencing from stock,

Page 67

Ruataniwha and management, of this project supporting a range of legation protection of Riparian including animal pest indigenous birds, bats, over 600 ha, on-going Enhancement control lizards, invertebrates, weed control. Zone (River Halo and vegetation. 314 ha for river bed Project) plant pest control River bed plant pest control (mainly willows) will expand breeding anfd feeding habitat for wader birds, such as black fronted dotterel 500 ha – upper Makaroro River Catchment Feral cats, rats, Key at Fencing, legal Project C: possums and risk/threatened 600 ha – e.g. wader protection (as and if Ruataniwha mustelids would be species such as bats, bird habitat or blue required) and Threatened 30 years primary targets. blue duck, banded duck habitat facilitating advocacy of Species Habitat Hedghogs may alos be dotterel, falcon, kiwi, threatened species in Enhancement Bat habitat targeted in some as well as mistletoe if Central Hawke’s Bay. enhancement – not locations present. specified – assume at least 250ha Total Minimum > 2,700 ha Area

Page 68

EXHIBIT GK7 COVENANT AND SMEDLEY EXCHANGE BLOCK MAPS AND TABLE

Table GK7.1 Comparison of the Vegetation Composition between the RWSS footprint and the Smedley Exchange Block. Vegetation types within DOC administered protected land within the RWSS have also been included. Note that the DOC areas are not additive to the RWSS figures, they are included in the overall 450.18 ha impact footprint. Also note that of the 308 ha potentially available in the Smedley Exchange block 23 ha of pasture is required for exchange with Pan Pac.

DOC RWSS Impact Smedley Exchange Vegetation / habitat type Impact footprint Block Footprint Farm track or road 2.91 2.13 Stream channel 0.83 Gravel river bed 73.97 0.42 Indigenous Forest 80.71 12.47 40.44 beech forest 52.03 10.53 37.32 podocarp-broadleaf forest 10.61 podocarp-black beech/broadleaf forest 3.12 broadleaf forest 17.4 1.94 small-leaved forest 0.67 Indigenous Scrub 22.7 49.3 broadleaf scrub 1.43 broadleaf-small-leaved scrub 14.89 (kowhai)/broadleaf scrub 1.19 (podocarp)/broadleaf-small-leaved scrub 10.52 small-leaved-broadleaf scrub 10.99 32.98 Indigenous Shrubland/Treeland 59.05 8.18 100.53 small-leaved-broadleaf shrubland 14.71 broadleaf-small-leaved shrubland 44.06 (podocarp)/broadleaf-small-leaved treeland/shrubland 18.8 3.36 podocarp/broadleaf treeland 0.34 broadleaf treeland 1.54 black beech treeland 9.32 0.58 38.32 broadleaf-small-leaved-monocot scrub/treeland 5.57 broadleaf-small-leaved tussock-shrubland 29.92 manuka and/or kanuka shrubland 0.15 small-leaved treeland and/or shrubland 1.01 bracken-grass land 0.08 Wetland Vegetation 5.11 0.29 0.49 podocarp-broadleaf-small-leaved shrubland/seep zone 0.46 0.49 seep zone 4.36 wetland 0.29 0.29 Exotic Vegetation 204.9 0.86 115.3 exotic forest and/or treeland 16 0.57 pasture or rank grass 174.24 0.29 115.3 willow/lupine forest and/or scrub 14.66 0 Grand Total 450.18 22.22 308.19

Page 69 Figure GK7.1 Proposed Hall Covenant

Page 70

Figure GK7.2 Proposed Wilson Covenant – A & Buffer Planting Area

Page 71

Figure GK7.3 Proposed Wilson Covenant – B & Buffer Planting Area

Page 72

Figure GK7.4 Proposed Smedley Station Exchange Block, Covenant & Buffer Planting Area

Page 73

Figure GK7.5 Vegetation Composition within the Proposed Smedley Station Exchange Block

Page 74